M. ASGHAR JANJUA vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN — 2026 SCMR 267 SUPREME-COURT

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

M. ASGHAR JANJUA VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN. Expression "Gratuity"---Meaning and scope---Expression "gratuity" delineates a lump-sum/consolidated amount of money remunerated by an employer to an employee leading up to formal retirement, which is always regarded as significant milestone that marks the end of employee's career and starting of a new chapter in his life---Gratuity is a financial benefit provided as a token of gratitude for an employee's loyalty, efficient service and completion of certain years of service and depending upon the terms and conditions of employment, it becomes a legal obligation rather than a voluntary benefit---Sometimes it may be classified as bounty but if its payment obligation is structured and regulated by legal provisions/rules or regulations, then its payment turns into indispensable and mandatory rather than considering it a mere bounty. Employees of Pakistan Steel Mill (PSM)---Vires of amendment in Gratuity Rules---Withholding of financial benefits/gratuity---Doctrine of sub silentio---Scope---Decision of High Court on the basis of financial constraints of PSM instead of legal/constitutional grounds---Legality---Every employee is entitled to the payment of his full and final settlement on his superannuation---Non-payment of gratuity has nothing to do with losses or financial crunch, quite the reverse, the amount of gratuity, provident fund and pension is an inherent/vested right of every retired employee which is deep-seated in the Industrial Relations and Civil Service Laws---Every employer without any pretext or deferment is bound to pay off this liability immediately on the eve of retirement rather than delaying or shelving this vested right for an indefinite period or putting this obligation in a state of uncertainty---Many crucial questions of law were raised by the petitioners which were not considered by the High Court but the substrata of decision paid attention only to the alleged financial crunch rather than adverting to the spectrum of plea of vires of amendment in the Gratuity Rules including the other claims/benefits on the touchstone of applicable laws, thus, the judgment of High Court was also hit by the doctrine of "sub silentio"---Civil petitions were converted into appeals and were allowed. Vires of law, rules or regulations can be challenged if its provisions are ex facie discriminatory, in which case actual proof of discriminatory treatment is not required to be shown, but there is also a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the enactments, unless it is ex facie violative of a constitutional provision. Each case has to be decided on its own facts---Each litigant ought to be provided a fair chance of hearing to present and plead his case and the decision of the court must be founded and structured on the merits of the case. "Sub silentio"---Meaning and scope---"Sub silentio", a Latin term, literally translates to "under silence" or "in silence"---In legal milieus, it points towards an incidence where the Court decides alis without appreciating or deliberating the particular point of law raised before it, which disturbs the precedential value of the judgment---Such doctrine often denotes that if the court, in its judgment, overlooked or dispensed with a crucial point of law raised before it, then the precedential value of such decision is seriously disturbed---Decision is not binding if it was reached at without argument, without reference to the critical terms of the law and without citation of authority and such a decision, taken as sub silentio, lacks authoritative weight.

M. ASGHAR JANJUA vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN — 2026 SCMR 267 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR