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. Regulation 15(1a), Oil and Gas Development Corporation Employees (Service) Regulations, 1994---Oil and Gas Development Corporation Ordinance (XXXVII of 1961), Section 5---Oil and Gas Development Corporation (Reorganization) Ordinance (XXVIII of 2001), Sections 4 & 5---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), Section 24---Constitution of Pakistan, Article 185(3)---Claim of additional pension---Denial of benefit---Claim for 2% increment per extra year of service beyond 30 years---Entitlement---Continuity of service conditions and pension rights after conversion of Corporation into Company---Scope. Petitioner joined Oil and Gas Development Corporation (OGDC) as Accounts Assistant in 1995 after serving in Pakistan Military Accounts Department. Upon reorganization under Oil and Gas Development Corporation (Reorganization) Ordinance, 2001, the Corporation was converted into Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL), and petitioner became employee of newly incorporated company by operation of law. Petitioner retired as Senior Accountant on 17.06.2021 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 Pension Regulations, 1985, which provided additional 2% of gross pension for each year of service beyond 30 years subject to maximum limit of 10%. Company rejected his claim through office memorandum, which was upheld by High Court, resulting in filing of appeal before Supreme Court. Held: It was admitted between the parties that Pension and Service Regulations framed under erstwhile Ordinance continued to regulate affairs of Company. Even otherwise, Supreme Court had already affirmed continuing enforceability of said Regulations after promulgation of Ordinance, 2001. Under Section 24 of General Clauses Act, 1897, the Regulations were deemed to have been issued under Ordinance, 2001 unless inconsistent with provisions thereof. Section 5 of Ordinance, 2001 specifically provided that all employees of Corporation, on the date of incorporation of Company, shall be deemed to be employees of Company on same remuneration and other conditions of service, rights and privileges including pension, provident fund and gratuity applicable before conversion. The said provision protected and preserved service conditions and pension rights of employees of erstwhile Corporation. Regulation 15(1a) of Pension Regulations extended benefit of additional pension to employees of Corporation on 19.04.1987. Respondents contended that benefit of additional pension had been withdrawn through office memorandum dated 04.09.2001, being Government directive binding upon Company under Regulation 265 of Service Regulations. Held further: Office memorandum dated 04.09.2001 could not be construed as directive or instruction issued by Federal Government to Company under Regulation 265. Any decision of Board of Directors declining additional pension benefit on basis of said memorandum was contrary to Section 5 of Ordinance, 2001 read with Regulation 15(1a) of Pension Regulations. The office memorandum whereby Company declined petitioner's claim was set aside. Ordinance, 2001 not only recognized but protected pension rights of employees by ensuring that terms and conditions of service of employees of erstwhile Corporation and successor Company could not be altered to their disadvantage. Petitioner was declared entitled to additional pension under Section 5 of Ordinance, 2001 read with Regulation 15(1a) of Pension Regulations. Company was directed to pay additional pension to petitioner according to Pension Regulations. Petition was converted into appeal and allowed.

SHAKEEL AHMED KAYANI vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ISLAMABAD — 2026 SCMR 449 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR