ZAFAR ULLAH KHAN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ZAFAR ULLAH KHAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting arts.9, 25 & 199---Employment---Denial of payment of commutation amounts (pensionary benefit) to retired employees of Pakistan Television Corporation (PTVC), challenge to---Entitlement---Pensionary benefits and entitlements---Fundamental right---Pensionary benefits equated to and are protected as part of right to life under art. 9 of the Constitution---Right to pension and commutation, grant of---Significance and essence stated---The main issue in the present petition was withholding of commutation amounts (pensionary benefits) by Pakistan Television Corporation from its retired employees---The case revolved around whether the denial in releasing these commutation benefits (pensionary benefits) was lawful and sustainable, and whether such benefits formed part of the retired employees' constitutionally protected right to life and livelihood---Held: The petitioners, though employees of a Corporation, had performed public functions under the substantial administrative and financial control of the State, in such circumstances, the denial of commutation amount (pensionary benefit), by the respondent No.4 (Finance Division) on the pretext that PTVC employees were limited to CPF instead of GPF or statutory pension and by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 on the pretext of an ongoing financial crisis was also both arbitrary and unjust and it also amounted to unfair discrimination and violated the settled principles of fairness, equality, and legitimate expectation---Stance of the respondents created an unjustified distinction between employees of the Federal Government and those serving in State-owned entities---Such a classification, without reasonable and objective justification, offended the mandate of art. 25 of the Constitution, which guaranteed equality before law and equal protection of law---Prima facie, the petitioners possessed the requisite qualifying service and were duly retired in accordance with the applicable rules---The right to receive pension and its allied benefits, including commutation, was not merely a statutory entitlement but formed part of the fundamental right to life as envisaged under art.9 of the Constitution---a retired employee, upon superannuation, was ordinarily bereft of alternate sources of income and was wholly dependent on pension for sustenance, dignity, and survival---Pension, much like salary, constituted a continuous and legitimate source of livelihood---as such, it fell squarely within the protective ambit of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under art. 9 of the Constitution as right to life inherently encompassed the right to livelihood---Consequently, this right could not be subjected to the whims, discretion, or arbitrary inclinations of those in positions of authority---Public employment, and the benefits flowing therefrom, was not a charitable concession or bounty granted by the State or its functionaries, nor could its continuity be left to their mercy---Rather, it was a legally enforceable right, grounded in law, justice, and constitutional protections---Upon superannuation or retirement, the pensionary entitlements of an employee, including commutation, must be processed during service and disbursed promptly upon retirement, without any unwarranted delay---Consequently the right of commutation amount vested in favour of the petitioners, and they were entitled to its release---The respondents were directed to process the case of petitioners for grant of commutation amount according to law without any failure of time---However, the remaining relief, in respect of the prayer to restrain the respondents from utilizing the amount received from the encashment of NIT Units, was beyond the purview of the High Court's jurisdiction under art. 199 of the Constitution, as the petitioners had an alternate efficacious remedy available under the Companies Ordinance 1984, having its own Memorandum of association and articles of association, therefore, this relief was declined---Present Constitutional petition was partially allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PLC(CS) 1462 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case ZAFAR ULLAH KHAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting art.199---Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, R.2(1)(g)---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Retired employees of Pakistan Television Corporation (PTVC) claiming commutation amounts (pensionary benefit)---PTVC incorporated as a public limited company but under effective and dominant control of the Federal Government---Federal Government holding majority shareholding and administrative control---Effect---"Person or authority" performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation---Scope---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere in affairs of PTVC---Test and criterion---although PTVC is incorporated as a limited company, it has, since its inception, remained under the effective and dominant control of the Federal Government, which holds the majority of its shareholding---The Government exercises pervasive administrative and financial control over PTVC, which functions as a public service broadcaster and performs duties of a public nature---Therefore, PTVC qualifies as a "public sector company" within the ambit of R. 2(1)(g) of the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, as amended from time to time---It is thereby deemed to be a "person" discharging functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, within the meaning and scope of constitutional jurisprudence---Moreover, appointments to the offices of General Manager and Managing Director of PTVC are made directly by the Federal Government, and the emoluments payable to such officeholders are disbursed from the public exchequer, as such, High Court has the jurisdiction to interfere in the subject affairs of PTVC under its Constitutional jurisdiction. Citation Name: 2025 PLC(CS) 1462 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case ZAFAR ULLAH KHAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting art.9---Right to pension---Scope---Denial of pension amounts to infringement of right to life---Pension is a right which the Government servants or employees in different positions and different capacities earn in terms of the relevant statutory provisions applicable to their case, mostly depending upon their length of service; and, in any case it is not a State bounty which could be awarded as a favour to any individual outside the scope of the applicable statute---Pension is integral to a retired employee's sustenance and dignity, and denial thereof amounts to infringement of the right to life under article 9 of the Constitution. Citation Name: 2025 PLC(CS) 1462 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case ZAFAR ULLAH KHAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting art.199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Retired employees of Pakistan Television Corporation (PTVC) claiming commutation amounts (pension)---Service rules of PTVC being non-statutory---Effect---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, exercise of---Scope---The question of payment of commutation amount (pension), being purely a matter pertaining to fundamental rights of the petitioners (retired employees of PTVC), can be looked into in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court irrespective of the fact whether the service rules of PTVC are statutory or not.

ZAFAR ULLAH KHAN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting arts — 2025 PLC(CS) 1462 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC