SHAKEEL AHMED KAYANI vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR / CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ISLAMABAD

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

SHAKEEL AHMED KAYANI VS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR / CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ISLAMABAD. Regln. 15(1a)---Oil and Gas Development Corporation Ordinance (XXXVII of 1961), S. 5---Oil and Gas Development Corporation (Reorganization) Ordinance (XXVIII of 2001), Ss. 4 & 5---Oil and Gas Development Corporation Employees (Service) Regulations, 1994, Regln. 265---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 24---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Claim of "additional pension", denial of---Claim for 2% increment per extra year of service beyond 30 years---Entitlement---Oil and Gas Development Corporation converted into OGDCL---Continuity of service conditions and pension rights of employees of corporation despite the conversion---Scope---Supreme Court directed the company to grant additional pension---The petitioner joined the Oil and Gas Development Corporation (OGDC) as accounts assistant in 1995 after serving in the Pakistan Military Accounts Department---Upon reorganization under the Oil and Gas Development Corporation (Reorganization) Ordinance, 2001, the corporation was converted into the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL), and the petitioner became an employee of the new company by operation of law---He retired as 'senior accountant' on 17 June 2021 after serving for about 40 years and 10 months, including his earlier government service---He claimed entitlement to "additional pension" under Regulation 15(1a) of the Pension Regulations 1985, providing an extra 2% of gross pension for each year of service beyond 30 years, up to a 10% maximum---The company rejected his claim through an office memorandum, which the High Court upheld on, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court---Held: It was an admitted position between the parties that the Pension and Service Regulations made under the erstwhile Ordinance continued to regulate the affairs of the Company---Even otherwise, Supreme Court had already affirmed the continuing enforceability of said Regulations even after promulgation of Ordinance, 2001---Besides, under Section 24 of the General Clauses Act 1897, the Regulations were deemed to have been issued under Ordinance, 2001 unless inconsistent with the said Ordinance---Section 5 of the Ordinance 2001 provided that "all employees of the Corporation shall on the date of incorporation of the company be deemed to be the employees of the company on the same remuneration and other conditions of service, rights and privileges including the pension, provident fund and gratuity as were applicable to them before the conversion of the corporation into the company"---This provision saved and protected the terms and conditions of the employees of the erstwhile corporation---Under Regulation 15(1a) of the Pension Regulations, the benefit of "additional pension" was extended to the employees of the Corporation on 19.04.1987---As per the respondents, the benefit of additional pension had been withdrawn under the office memorandum dated 04.09.2001 which being a directive / instruction of the federal government was binding on the company under Regulation 265 of the Service Regulation---The office memorandum dated 04.09.2001 could not be constructed as a directive or instruction issued to the company by the federal government under Regulation 265---Any decision of board of directors, which without reference to the office memorandum stated that board of directors had resolved that the maximum scale of gross pension would continue to be equal to 70% of the pensionable salary upon completion of 30 years or more service at the time of retirement, was inconsequential as the same was in violation of Section 5 of the Ordinance 2001 read with Regulation 15(1a) of the Pensions Regulation---Moreover, the office memorandum whereby company declined claim of the petitioner was set aside keeping in view the statutory framework regulating the working of the company---Ordinance, 2001, not only recognized but also protected pension by ensuring that the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the erstwhile Corporation, and now of the successor Company, could not be altered to their disadvantage---Impugned judgment was set aside by declaring that the petitioner was entitled to "additional Pension" under Section 5 of the Ordinance, 2001 read with Regulation 15(1a) of the Pension Regulations with the direction to the company to pay the "additional pension" to the petitioner in accordance with the Pension Regulations---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances.

SHAKEEL AHMED KAYANI vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR / CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ISLAMABAD — 2026 PLC(CS) 493 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLC