IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, HCJ 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
 
 
SUO MOTU CASE NO.20 OF 2016 AND HUMAN RIGHTS CASES 
NO.7094-P, 26591-P, 15518-P/2015, 25917-S AND 26252-
S/2016 AND 3910-K, 3911-S, 3912-P, 3913-G AND 3914-P/2018 
AND CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.45/2016 AND C.M.APPEAL 
NO.203/2016 
IN 
CONST.P.NO.NIL/2016 
AND 
CIVIL 
MISC. 
APPLICATIONS NO.7394 & 7484/2016 AND 141, 288, 3772, 
3374, 892, 1496, 2076, 2655, 2656, 3797, 3912, 3913, 4252, 
4253, 4254, 4291, 8234, 9172, 9312, 9313 & 9314/2017 AND 
57, 45, 301, 381, 454, 577, 511, 592, 593, 652, 653, 654, 727, 
728, 735, 777, 778, 779, 813, 780 & 883/2018 
 
 
SMC 20/2016: 
Suo motu action regarding non-payment of 
retirement 
benefits 
by 
the 
relevant 
departments 
 
 
HRC 7094-P/2015: 
Mehmood-ul-Hassan 
Vs. 
Secretary 
Privatization Commission and another 
 
 
HRC 26591-P/2015: 
Muhammad Hanif (R) District Population 
Welfare Officer, Multan Vs. Government of 
Punjab etc. 
 
 
HRC 15518-P/2015: 
Muhammad Hanif (R) District Population 
Welfare Officer, Multan Vs. Government of 
Punjab etc. 
 
 
HRC 25917-S/2016: 
Dr. Khawar Ubaid Alvi Vs. Secretary, Local 
Govt. Sindh 
 
 
HRC 26252-S/2016: 
Syed Imtiaz Ali Vs. Local Government 
Department, Sindh 
 
 
HRC 3910-K/2018:  
Application by Anwar Khan 
 
 
HRC 3911-S/2018: 
Application by Abdul Shakoor Shaikh 
 
 
HRC 3912-P/2018: 
Application by Muhammad Din 
 
 
HRC 3913-G/2018: 
Application Muhammad Ameer Khan 
 
 
HRC 3914-P/2016: 
Malik Niaz Shami Vs. Malik Fazal Khan 
Shamir 
 
 
Const.P.45/2016: 
Saif-ur-Rehman and others Vs. Federation 
of Pakistan and others 
 
 
C.M.Appeal 203/2016: 
Khan 
Muhammad 
Khan 
Vs. 
Islamic 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 2 :-
Republic of Pakistan through President of 
Pakistan and others 
 
 
CMA 7394/2016: 
Application 
for 
impleadment 
by 
Muhammad Ayub 
 
 
CMA 7484/2016: 
Application by Mahboob Ahmed Soomro 
 
 
CMA 141/2017: 
Application by Sultan Mehmood 
 
 
CMA 288/2017: 
Application by Rao Nasim Tehsin 
 
 
CMA 3772/2017: 
Application for impleadment by Mian 
Muhammad Saleem and others Vs. VC 
University of Engineering and Technology 
Lahore and others 
 
 
CMA 3774/2017: 
Application 
for 
Impleadment 
by 
Mohammad Naseem Tahir & others Vs. 
VC. University Engineering and Technology 
Lahore & others 
 
 
CMA 892/2017: 
Application by Hazoor ul Islam Abbasi 
 
 
CMA 1496/2017: 
Application for impleadment by Zahid 
Amin Khan and others 
 
 
CMA 2076/2017: 
Application for impleadment by Mahmood 
Ahmed 
 
 
CMA 2655/2017: 
Application for impleadment by Shafaqat 
Hussain 
 
 
CMA 2656/2017: 
Application for impleadment by Nazar 
Abbas Shah 
 
 
CMA 3797/2017: 
Application by Bashir Ahmad Lodhi 
 
 
CMA 3912/2017: 
Application for impleadment by Sadiq 
Masih and other Vs. President Habib Bank 
 
 
CMA 3913/2017: 
Application 
for 
impleadment 
by 
Muhammad Zareen and others Vs. VC 
University Engineering and Technology, 
Lahore 
 
 
CMA 4252/2017: 
Application by Dildar Muhammad Awan 
 
 
CMA 4253/2017: 
Application by Syed Maqsood Hussain 
Kazmi 
 
 
CMA 4254/2017: 
Application by Muhammad Rafique 
 
 
CMA 4291/2017: 
Application by Rehmat Ali and others 
 
 
CMA 8234/2017: 
Application by Muhammad Farooq 
 
 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 3 :-
CMA 9172/2017: 
Application by Zahid Ahmed Barlas 
 
 
CMA 9312/2017: 
Application by Abdul Jabbar and others 
 
 
CMA 9313/2017: 
Application by Walayat Hussain and others 
 
 
CMA 9314/2017: 
Application by Ghulam Hussain and others 
 
 
CMA 57/2018: 
Application by Mumtaz Ahmed 
 
 
CMA 45/2018: 
Application by Muhammad Farooq 
 
 
CMA 301/2018: 
Application by Muhammad Rafique Sohail 
 
 
CMA 381/2018: 
Application by Mubarik Ali 
 
 
CMA 454/2018: 
Application by Muhammad Rafiq 
 
 
CMA 577/2018: 
Application by Mst. Kali Jan 
 
 
CMA 511/2018: 
Application by Nasir Hussain Shah 
 
 
CMA 592/2018: 
Application by Arshad Ali Khan 
 
 
CMA 593/2018: 
Application by Syed Sajid Ali shah 
 
 
CMA 652/2018: 
Application by Rafiq Ahmed 
 
 
CMA 653/2018: 
Application by Arshad Khan 
 
 
CMA 654/2018: 
Application by Abdullah Khan 
 
 
CMA 727/2018: 
Application by Kausar Parveen 
 
 
CMA 728/2018: 
Application Angori 
 
 
CMA 735/2018: 
Application by Saranjam Khan 
 
 
CMA 777/2018: 
Application by Yasmeen Ayaz 
 
 
CMA 778/2018: 
Application by Mohammad Iqbal Khan 
 
 
CMA 779/2018: 
Application by Muhammad Saeed 
 
 
CMA 813/2018: 
Application by Kalsum Lahkar 
 
 
CMA 780/2018: 
Application by Ali Gohar 
 
 
CMA 883/2018: 
Application by Muhammad Anwar etc. 
 
In attendance: 
Mr. Muhammad Waqar Rana, Addl.A.G.P. 
Mr. Rashid Hafiz, DAG 
Mian Abdul Rauf, A.G. Islamabad 
Mr. Shehryar Qazi, Addl.A.G. Sindh 
Mr. Ayaz Swati, Addl.A.G. Balochistan 
Mr. Farid Dogar, AAG, Balochistan.  
Mr. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Addl. AG KPK. 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 4 :-
 
Mr. Tariq Waheed, Dy Accounts Officer for 
D.C. RWP 
 
Mr. Nasir Mehmood, LO Finance Dept. Pb. 
Syed Afzal Hassan, Accounts Officer AGPR 
Mr. Saqib Javed Abbasi, AAO AGPR 
Mr. Aziz Ahmed, Director CGA Islamabad 
Mr. Sohail Ijaz, AAO 
Syed Imtiaz Hussain, AAO CGA 
Mr. Fayad Durrani, Accountant General, 
Peshawar 
Mr. Abid Hussain Channa, SO M/o Finance 
Mr. M. Ikram Abbasi, Law Officer, Education 
Department, Punjab 
Mr. M. Naseem Butt, Accounts Officer Legal 
for Accountant General Punjab 
Mr. Abdul Razzaq, Asstt. Accountant Officer, 
MAG RWP 
Mr. Rehan Akhtar, AO for AG Balochistan  
Mr. Bakhtiarullah, AO for AG KPK 
Rana Amanullah, Dir. (Finance) Local Board 
Punjab.  
Rana Tariq Shaukat, Dy. Dir. Colleges, 
Punjab. 
Mr. Tariq Hameed, Dy. Secy. HE Dept. 
Punjab.  
 
Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, ASC 
(For HBL & ABL) 
 
Mr. Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, ASC 
Mr. Tariq Aziz, AOR 
(For UBL) 
 
Mr. Hashmat Ali Habib, ASC 
(In CMA 288/2017) 
 
Mr. Farrokh Niaz, in person 
(In CMA 8404/2016) 
 
Mr. Abdul Raheem Bhatti, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
(In CMA 1496/2017, CMA 558/18) 
 
Ms. Ayesha Hamid, ASC 
Raja Muhammad Sarfraz, in person 
(For retired UBL employees) 
 
Syed Ali Zafar, ASC 
Mr. Zahid Nawaz Cheema, ASC 
(For HBL) 
 
Mr. Salman Aslam Butt, Sr. ASC 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR.  
(For UBL/Resp.4 in Const.P.45/2016) 
 
Mr. Babar A. Khilji, ASC  
(CMA 883/18) 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 5 :-
 
Mr. Shoaib Shaheen, ASC 
(in CMA 3797/17) 
 
Mr. Javed Iqbal, ASC  
(For PPCBL) 
 
Mr. Umer Aslam Khan, ASC 
(In CMA 7394/2016) 
 
Rai M. Nawaz Khan Kharal, ASC 
(In CMA 9172/2017) 
 
Mr. Tariq Mehmood Khokhar, ASC. 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR. 
(for Allied Bank employees In CMA 8234, 9312-
9314/2017) 
 
Raja M. Farooq, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
(In CMA 892/2017) 
 
Mr. Ahmed Awais, ASC 
Mr. Tipu Salman Makhdoom, ASC 
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, AOR 
(In Const.P.45/2016) 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
(In CMA 45/2018) 
 
Raja Muhammad Sarfraz (UBL)  
 
Nazar Abbas (UBL) (CMA 2656/2017) 
Muhammad Naseem Qazi (UBL) (CMA 1459/2017) 
Mr. Khan Muhammad (WAPDA)  
(In C.M. Appeal 203/2016) 
Sultan Mahmood 
(CMA 141/2017) 
Shafqat Hussain  
(CMA 2655/2017) 
Hazoorul Islam Abbasi (HBL) 
Mehboob Ahmed Soomro (HBL) 
Dildar Awan, Maqsood Hussain Kazmi, M. 
Rafique (ZTBL) 
Muhammad Farooq (CMA 8234/2017) 
Mian Muhammad Aslam (CMA 3772/2017) 
Dr. Khawar Ubaid Alvi (HRC 25917-S/2016) 
Dr. Surraya Khawar (HRC 25917-S/2016) 
Syed Imtiaz Ali (HRC 26252/2016) 
Mian Muhammad Saleem (UET) 
M. Ishaque, in-person. (HRC 26252/2016) 
Amicus Curiae: 
Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sr. ASC 
 
 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 6 :-
On Court’s notice: 
Ms. Seema Kamil, President UBL 
Mr. Aamir Karachiwala, CFO UBL 
 
Mr. Raymond H. Kotwal, President HBL 
Mr. Jamal Nasir, Head HR 
 
Mr. Tahir Hassan Qureshi, President ABL 
Mr. Atif Izhar, SVP/Head of HR Deptt. ABL 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
14.12.2017, 16.01.2018, 17.01.2018,  
18.01.2018, 06.02.2018 & 13.02.2018 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, CJ.- These Suo Motu proceedings 
initially arose when a large number of complaints were submitted to 
the Human Rights Cell of this Court, wherein retired employees of 
various departments complained about non-payment of their 
pensionary benefits. We took notice of the same and the case was 
first heard as SMC No.20/2016 on 14.11.2016. 
2. 
 
On 
the 
said 
date 
some 
of 
the 
present 
applicants/petitioners, retirees of United Bank Limited (hereinafter 
the “UBL”) and Allied Bank Limited (hereinafter the “ABL”) also 
approached this Court with the grievance that they were receiving 
meagre amounts by way of pension from the banks and the latter 
were not granting increases in the pensionary benefits for many 
years. On the very next date of hearing they were joined by 
applicants/pensioners of Habib Bank Limited (hereinafter the 
“HBL”); they cited similar grievances. Whilst a whole gamut of 
grievances to do with pensionary  benefits were dealt with separately, 
we heard the matters relating to the pensioners of the aforesaid three 
banks together as the facts are so similar as to be almost 
interchangeable and in all material particulars the three banks and 
their respective pensioners are similarly placed. Nevertheless, we will 
give a brief synopsis of the admitted facts pertaining to the three 
banks. 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 7 :-
UBL 
3. 
 
The UBL was originally a private bank. It was 
nationalized in 1974 pursuant to the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 
1974 (hereinafter the “Act 1974”), and came to be wholly owned by 
the Government of Pakistan. The pensioners of the UBL may be 
broadly divided into three categories; namely, the ‘original retirees’, 
the ‘recently retired’ and the ‘retrenched employees’. The ‘original 
retirees’ may be typified by the petitioner in CMA No.1686/2017 who 
joined UBL on 11.10.1973 and served for 25 years, 1 month, 17 days 
before retiring on 28.11.1998. His basic pay drawn as on 28.11.1998 
was Rs.4,530/- per month. Fifty percent of the gross pension was 
commuted and paid to him at the time of retirement whereas 
Rs.1,321/- was held to be payable to him on monthly basis as his 
pension. Thereafter, 18 years later his monthly pension remains 
Rs.1,321/-. The pension of ‘original retirees’ (in clerical cadres) of the 
bank was calculated on the basis of Memorandum # F:6(1)-REV-I/75, 
dated 07.01.1977, issued by the Finance Division, Government of 
Pakistan. It provided that the liberalized pension rules for civil 
servants were also applicable to employees of nationalized banks. 
UBL informed its employees in clerical and non-clerical cadres 
through Staff Circular No.158 dated 25.02.1977 that the aforesaid 
Memorandum dated 7.1.1977 would be applicable to them. The 
grievance of these petitioners is that the UBL has illegally withheld 
increases in their pensionary benefits which ought to have been 
granted in parity with those given to civil servants over the years. 
4. 
 
The ‘recently retired’ category of pensioners may be 
represented by the likes of petitioners in CMA No.2825/2017 wherein 
the petitioner No. 1 joined UBL on 09.08.1976, and after thirty-seven 
(37) years in service retired on 31.10.2013 as Vice President. His last 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 8 :-
drawn basic pay on 31.10.2013 was Rs. 93,207/-. However the 
monthly pension being paid to him in the sum of Rs. 3,823/- has 
been calculated on the basis of his basic salary as on 30.06.2001 (11 
years earlier) in the sum of Rs. 9,930/- . The other five petitioners 
whose service history with UBL is presented in the said CMA also 
variously served the bank for 36, 40, 38, 41 and 38 years and all 
retired when they were drawing handsome salaries between 2011 and 
2014. They are however receiving pensions which are linked to the 
salaries drawn on 30.06.2001. For the ‘recently retired’ category the 
pensionary benefits were governed by the Notification No. 17 (9)-IF, 
XI/77 dated 30.11.1977 addressed to the Chairman, Pakistan 
Banking Council, the Government of Pakistan, Finance Division 
(Internal Finance Wing) whereby a scheme of pensions and 
retirement benefits for bank employees similar to that applicable to 
civil servants was introduced. In order to give effect to the 
instructions of the Federal Government, UBL issued Staff Circular 
No. 192 dated 24.12.1977, informing its officers and executives of the 
change in the scheme of pension and retirement benefits applicable 
to them; pursuant to paragraph 3(f) of the Circular No. 192/1977, 
the pension payable to a retired employee of UBL was to be 
calculated on the basis of the “average monthly basic pay plus 
dearness allowances drawn … during the last three years of 
service” 
(hereinafter 
the 
“Original 
Pension 
Scheme”). 
On 
18.07.2001, the Human Resource Development department of UBL 
issued Staff Circular No. 943/2001, to notify the management of an 
across the board 40% average increase in the gross salaries as on 
30.06.2001. At the same time the pensionary benefits were curtailed 
and it was ordained that henceforth for those employees continuing 
with 
the 
Original 
pension 
scheme, 
“In 
such 
cases, 
on 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 9 :-
retirement/death, they will get their pension benefits calculated on the 
basis of their frozen basic pay admissible to them as on 30th June 
2001.”. The grievance of these petitioners is two-fold; firstly that UBL 
could not have illegally pegged their pensionary benefits to the 
‘frozen’ pay as on 30.06.2001 and secondly, that they have received 
no increases in the pension since 2001. 
5. 
 
The category of ‘retrenched employees’ are typified by the 
petitioners in CMA No.2424/2017. Petitioner No.1 in the said CMA 
joined UBL on 5.06.1982. Vide Letter Ref: LOR/375128/97 dated 
10.10.1997 
(hereinafter 
“UBL’s 
Retrenchment 
letter”) 
UBL 
terminated his services with immediate effect, after he had served the 
bank for 15 years. He was paid a total amount of Rs.4,42,682/- as 
benefits under the Retrenchment Scheme. He was paid no pension. 
In this category those retrenchees who had served more than 30 
years were also given pension. The grievance of these petitioners is 
two-fold; firstly that the UBL could not have illegally withheld their 
pensionary benefits once they had qualified for the same upon ten 
years’ service  and secondly, in case of those who did receive one, 
that they did not receive any increases in the said pensions. 
ABL 
6. 
 
At that time of enactment of Act, 1974, four (4) banks 
namely Australasia Bank, Sarhad Bank, Pak Bank and Lahore 
Commercial Bank were merged into one entity. It was renamed 
initially as the Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. (hereinafter the “ABL”). 
ABL came to be wholly owned by the Government of Pakistan. It was 
subsequently privatized on 09.09.1991. ABL through Circular no.P-
INST-77/47 
dated 
15.04.1977 
informed 
all 
employees 
that 
Memorandum # F:6(1)-REV-I/75, dated 07.01.1977 and # F.6(1)-
REV-I/75 dated 25.01.1977, issued by the Finance Division, 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 10 :-
Government of Pakistan, which set out the liberalized pension rules 
for civil servants were also applicable to employees of nationalized 
banks. The ‘original retirees’ of ABL are typified by the petitioner in 
CMA No.8404/2016 [Farrokh Niaz] who joined ABL on 21.05.1971 
and after serving for 26 years, 7 months retired on 28.12.1997. His 
basic pay drawn on 28.12.1997 was Rs.13,935/- per month. Fifty 
percent1 of the gross pension was commuted and paid to him at the 
time of retirement. Thereafter Rs.5,500/- was held to be payable to 
him on monthly basis as his pension. In 1991 it was increased to 
Rs.6,054.75 on the basis of a letter of the President of ABL, 18 years 
later his monthly pension is still Rs.6,054.75 per month. The 
grievance of ABL pensioners is the same as that of UBL pensioners. 
HBL 
7. 
 
HBL was nationalized in 1974 pursuant to the Act 1974 
and came to be wholly owned by the Government of Pakistan. The 
Finance Division’s Circular # 17(9)-F.XI/77 dated 30.11.1997 
introduced a new scheme of pension and retirement benefits for the 
officers and executives of nationalized banks and financial 
institutions along the same lines as those pertaining to civil servants. 
Letter/circular # GN/280 dated 22.02.1978 the Finance Division 
1977 Circular ibid was circulated to the employees of the HBL. In 
terms thereof, at the time of retirement the pension of the employees 
of the HBL was to be calculated @ 70% of the average emoluments on 
completion of 30 years of qualifying service. However, vide Bank’s 
Circular # STF/98/90 dated 30.12.1998 [hereinafter “HBL 1998 
Circular”] the Board of HBL introduced a new pension regime 
whereby the aforesaid pensionary benefits were reduced from 70% to 
33% whereas gratuity and Provident Fund contribution (own plus 
                                       
1 Rs.16,23,663/- paid in 1997. 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 11 :-
bank) was also reduced by almost 50% of the basic pay. Thereafter 
vide Circular # STF/2005/16 dated 04.03.2005 [hereinafter “HBL 
2005 Circular”] the Board of HBL once again curtailed the 
pensionary benefits and ordained that pension would be henceforth 
calculated on the basis of the salary of the employees as on 
31.03.2005. In addition, the option of commutation of the pension 
was discontinued and medical facilities were curtailed. Thereafter 
vide Circular # STF/20/2/30 dated 31.03.2012 [hereinafter “HBL 
2012 Circular”] the Board of HBL once again revised the pensionary 
benefits such that the gross pension would again be calculated on 
the basis of the last drawn basic salary. Vide Circular # 
STF/2014/063 dated 26.09.2014 [hereinafter “HBL 2014 Circular”] 
the Board of HBL again revised the basis for calculating pensionary 
benefits such that they would be calculated on the basis of last 
drawn salary as on 31.03.2014 and the number of years of service for 
the purposes of calculation would be till 31.03.2005. The pensioners 
of the HBL who were originally governed by the terms of the Finance 
Division’s 1977 Circular ibid and subsequently found their 
pensionary benefits curtailed under successive HBL circulars joined 
common cause with the ‘original retirees’ and the ‘recently retired’ 
categories of pensioners of UBL. 
8. 
 
Ms. Ayesha Hamid, ASC represented the first three 
categories of UBL pensioners set out hereinabove. She argued that 
Notification No. 17 (9)-IF, XI/77 dated 30.11.1977 issued by the 
Government of Pakistan, Finance Division (Internal Finance Wing) 
[hereinafter the “1977 Notification”] introduced a scheme of 
pensions and retirement benefits for bank employees similar to that 
introduced for civil servants. It was given effect by the UBL Staff 
Circular No. 192 dated 24.12.1977, informing its officers and 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 12 :-
executives of the change in the scheme of pension and retirement 
benefits applicable to them. This 1977 Notification pertained to the 
officers/executives of the bank. With respect to the bank employees 
in clerical and non-clerical cadres a similar regime obtained whereby 
Memorandum # F:6(1)-REV-I/75, dated 07.01.1977, issued by the 
Finance Division, Government of Pakistan was given effect by the 
UBL Staff Circular No. 158 dated 25.02.1977, informing its clerical 
and non-clerical staff of the change in the scheme of pension and 
retirement benefits applicable to them. Circular Nos. 158 & 
192/1977 were therefore statutory instruments with the backing of 
the 1977 Notifications which were also statutory. In this regard she 
relied on a recent judgment rendered by this Court in the case of 
Bahadur Khan and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan through 
Secretary M/o Finance, Islamabad and others (2017 SCMR 2066) 
in which this Court held that the 1977 Notification is a statutory 
instrument. She stated that the pensioners devoted the best years of 
their lives in the service of the banks. The purpose of pension is, in 
consideration of their past services, to enable employees who are past 
their working lives to be maintained in a dignified and a comfortable 
manner. A pension therefore is an instrument of socio-economic 
justice and economic security2. It is self-evident that the pensioners 
cannot possibly maintain themselves on the pensions of e.g. 
Rs.1321/- per month which are illusory and offend against the 
dignity of man promised to them in terms of Article 14 of the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Constitution). She 
argued that whilst a right to pension may not be a fundamental right 
per se, once an employee has worked for a number of years and 
fulfilled the requisite criteria for obtaining pension then the right to a 
                                       
2 D.S. Nakara v Union of India (AIR 1983 SC AIR 130) = [1983 (2) SCR 165] 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 13 :-
reasonable pension becomes perfected and such right once having 
accrued becomes a vested right and cannot be abridged by UBL as 
later done through decisions that set at naught the pensionary 
benefits earned under the 1977 Notification. She argued that 
pensioners are entitled to pension which ought to have been 
increased in terms of the cost of living to ensure that they received a 
minimum living wage; to deny them increases in their pension is to 
deny them a right to a livelihood which constitutes denial of their 
right to life in terms of Article 9 of the Constitution. She stated that 
vide Declaration of Trust dated 13.06.1995 (hereinafter the “Trust”) 
the UBL established a trust for the purposes of managing and 
distributing the Pension Fund created by UBL for the benefit and 
welfare of its employees. Clauses 3 and 14 of the Trust provided that, 
the privatization of the UBL would not in any way affect the objects of 
the Trust, and entitlement of employees to receive pensionary 
benefits from the Fund. The pensioners, according to her, are entitled 
to the monies held in the Pension Fund. Despite the fact that the 
UBL was privatized through Agreement for Sale dated 19.10.2002 
[“Privatization Agreement”] whereby the Privatization Commission 
and State Bank of Pakistan agreed to sell, and the Bestway Group 
agreed to purchase the shareholding of 51% of the total issued and 
paid up capital of UBL, for the total sum of Rs.12.35 billion, upon the 
terms and conditions stipulated in the Agreement; UBL remained 
liable for the pensions due to the pensioners. They (the private 
owners) bought UBL after a process of due diligence and on “as is, 
where is” basis. Therefore UBL cannot be allowed to walk away from 
its responsibilities to the pensioners. With respect to ‘retrenched 
employees’ she stated that there was no element of voluntariness to 
their retrenchment which was simply imposed on the 5416 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 14 :-
employees who were retrenched. This was an unconscionable 
contract imposed upon them by an all-powerful employer and was 
liable to be set aside on this count too. She relied on Ora Lee 
Williams v Walker Thomas Furniture Company [350 F .2d 445 
(1965)], Marybeth Armandariz v Foundation Health Psychcare [99 
Cal.Rptr.2d 745 (2000), Supreme Court of California], Cresswell v 
Potter [(1978) 1 WLR 255 (note)], The Port Caledonia and The Anna 
[(1903) P 184 Probate Division], Fry v Lane [(1888) 40 Ch D 312, 
322], Portman Building Society v Dusangh [(2000) 2 All ER (Comm) 
221, Court of Appeal] and Boustany v Pigott [(1995) 69 P & CR 298 
Privy Council]. When questioned about maintainability of the petitions 
she argued that a writ could issue to UBL in terms of Article 199(1)(c) 
of the Constitution as it was a matter of enforcement of fundamental 
rights but that her primary argument was that the increase in the 
pensionary benefits of the pensioners was the bank’s liability in terms 
of the Privatization Agreement whereby they stepped into the shoes of 
the Federal Government. And the question of public importance arose 
out of the fact that the Federal Government had made a sovereign 
commitment to the pensioners in the form of the 1977 Notification and 
this Court was liable to enforce the same. In this regard she relied 
upon Dewan Salman Fibre Ltd. and others Vs. Federation of 
Pakistan, through Secretary, M/O Finance and others (2015 PTD 
2304). 
9. 
 
Mr. Ahmed Awais, ASC also appeared for pensioners of 
UBL in Constitutional Petition No.45/2016. He stated that he had 
appended with his petition the complete list of those employees of the 
‘recently retired’ category whose pensions were pegged to their salaries 
as frozen on 30.06.2001. Petitioner No.1 (in CP 45/2016) retired when 
he was earning Rs.150,000/- per month but his pension per month 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 15 :-
today is only Rs.4,400/; which is below even the minimum wage. The 
40% increase in salaries given at the same time as the ‘freezing’ of the 
pension was not unusually generous as it was given after a period of 
8.5 years and was the result of a bank-wide strike in 2001. At the time 
of the privatization it was the Government which failed to protect the 
rights of the employees. 
10. 
 
Mr. Hashmat Ali Habib, ASC appeared on behalf of some 
of 
the 
HBL 
Retired 
Executive 
Officers 
Association 
in 
CMA 
No.288/2017. He stated that pension was a right of the persons who 
had rendered services in banks and that the 1977 Notification was still 
in force. As the petitioners retired before  privatization  of HBL in 2004, 
the bank was liable to honour commitments made by it under the 1977 
Notification. He adopted the arguments of Ms. Ayesha Hamid, ASC. 
11. 
 
Rai 
M. 
Nawaz 
Kharal, 
ASC 
appearing 
in 
CMA 
No.9172/2017 on behalf of Mr. Barlas, pensioner of HBL adopted the 
arguments of Ms. Ayesha Hamid, ASC. 
12. 
 
Mr. Abdul Rahim Bhatti, ASC appeared in CMA 
No.1496/2017 on behalf of HBL pensioners. He apprised us of the 
family pension being paid to one Khushal Bibi in the sum of 
Rs.243.72/- per month. Another pensioner Mst. Manzoor Fatima was 
being paid the “handsome” amount of Rs.360/- per month by way of 
pension. He stated that as per the provisions of the 1977 Notification 
an employee became eligible for pension after service of 10 years in the 
bank. As per this Notification a valid contract existed between the 
employees and the then nationalized HBL. On 30.12.1998 HBL 
arbitrarily and unilaterally changed the terms and conditions provided 
under the statutory 1977 Notification. This was illegal and could not 
have been done to the detriment of the employees.  He referred to I.A. 
Sharwani and others Vs. Government of Pakistan through 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 16 :-
Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others (1991 SCMR 
1041), and Ms. Shehla Zia and others Vs. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 
693). 
13. 
 
Mr. Mahboob Ahmad Soomro, petitioner in person in CMA 
No.7484/2016 stated that a different criterion for calculation of 
pensions of officers and clerical staff was being used which was 
discriminatory. [However, on reading his CMA it appears that the 
petitioner had not even retired at the time of filing the same and 
therefore he does not fall the category of pensioners that we are 
considering. As and when he retires, his pensionary benefits will be 
determined and affected by this judgment, in terms of his class wise 
entitlement and not on the basis of his individual petition]. 
14. 
 
Mr. Tariq Mehmood Khokar, ASC appeared for the 
pensioners of ABL in CMAs No.8234, 9312, 9313 and 9314/2017. He 
made three allegations against the bank, that it failed to grant 
increases in pension, the pension fund was worth Rs.5.6 billion at the 
time of privatization and the bank has ‘reversed’ this amount and 
illegally misappropriated this money and, lastly, when ABL was 
privatized in 2004 it was required to make contributions to pension 
fund but it did not do so.  
15. 
 
Mr. Salman Butt, ASC appeared on behalf of the UBL. He 
stated that UBL was established in 1959 as a private bank and a Trust 
Deed was executed to set up a Provident Fund on 27.8.1960. The Staff 
as well as UBL were to contribute to this Provident Fund. He referred to 
Article 260 of the Constitution and the definition of “pension” given 
therein to argue that this was the definition which would apply in this 
case. He argued that as certain pensioners had taken a major portion 
of their pension in commuted form this too would count as pension 
and it would be simplistic to say that the UBL was only paying, for 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 17 :-
example only a sum of Rs.4000/- per month to a pensioner. Coming to 
the 1977 Notification he stated that it was NOT a statutory instrument 
as it was never notified in the official gazette: at best it was a policy 
guideline. In this regard he relied on Saghir Ahmed through Legal 
Heirs Vs. Province of Punjab through Secretary, Housing and 
Physical Planning Lahore and others (PLD 2004 SC 261 @ 266), 
Muhammad Suleman etc. Vs. Abdul Ghani (PLD 1978 SC 190), 
Government of Sindh through Secretary Agriculture and 
Livestock Department and others Vs. Messrs Khan Ginners 
(Private) Limited and 57 others (PLD 2011 SC 347) and Chief 
Administrator Auqaf Vs. Mst. Amna Bibi (2008 SCMR 1717). He 
also submitted a comparative chart and stated that the 1977 
Notification in the case of UBL was slightly different in its terms and 
conditions. The Notification upheld as statutory in the Bahadur Khan’s 
case (supra) was different.  He argued that all banks were nationalized 
in terms of the Act 1974 which was to have overriding effect in terms of 
Section 16 thereof. He categorically stated that privatization also took 
place under the same Act 1974. The Act 1974 was amended in 1991 
and Sections 5A and 5B were added. In terms whereof once UBL was 
privatized the Act 1974 ceased to apply to it and no obligations under 
the said law would continue to operate against UBL. The Act 1974 was 
amended through Banks (Nationalization) (Amendment) Act XVIII 1997 
and the Pakistan Banking Council stood dissolved. Thereafter the 
Board of the UBL was authorized to take decisions with respect to the 
pensionary benefits of the pensioners. It validly did so in the form of 
Staff Circular 943 dated 18.07.2001 (when UBL had not yet been 
privatized) whereby the employees were given an unprecedented 40% 
increase in gross salary as on 30.06.2001 which they accepted and 
benefited from, that the revision of pensionary benefits was a part of 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 18 :-
this overall package. With respect to pension, the employees could have 
opted for ‘Option II’ i.e. joining the Provident Fund and the Gratuity 
Scheme and opting out of the Original Pension Scheme altogether. But 
as the employees/pensioners did not do so they were deemed to have 
opted for ‘Option I’ whereby they remained in the Original Pension 
Scheme but their pensionary benefits were to be calculated on the 
basis of the ‘frozen’ pay due to them as on 30.06.2001. The UBL’s 
pensioners were therefore estopped from claiming additional benefits. 
At this juncture it is also pertinent to mention that the learned counsel 
also mentioned a number a petitioners who had originally opted to 
remain in the 1960 Provident Fund scheme and on that count were not 
liable to be treated under the 1977 Notification in any event.  He also 
cited the principles of waiver and acquiescence as operating against the 
aggrieved petitioners. He made submissions with respect to lack of 
maintainability of the petitions, and stated that Article 184(3) would be 
regulated by Article 175(2) of the Constitution. The learned counsel 
stated that the UBL being a private bank was not amenable to issuance 
of a writ. It did not even remotely pass the function test to qualify as a 
person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the 
Federation or the Provincial Government and therefore no action 
against UBL could be taken in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. 
He relied on the case of Abdul Wahab & others Vs. HBL & others 
(2013 SCMR 1383) to state that this Court had already held that a 
matter involving the benefits of 310 employees of HBL was not a matter 
of public importance. Theirs was a private grievance and the bank 
being a private entity was not amenable to writ jurisdiction. In this 
case the relationship inter se the pensioners and the UBL was one of 
master and servant and our entire jurisprudence has developed to hold 
that the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. He 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 19 :-
provided a detailed chart to aid a comparison of Articles 184 and 199 
with similar provisions of the Indian Constitution.  He also relied on 
Muhammad Ashraf and others Vs. United Bank Limited and 
others (2015 SCMR 911), The Commissioner of Income-Tax, 
Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi Vs. Messrs Haji Maula Bux 
Corporation Limited Sargodha (PLD 1990 SC 990 @ pg. 1006 & 
1024), Regarding Pensionary Benefits of the Judges of Superior 
Courts from the date of their respective retirements, irrespective 
of their length of service as such Judges (PLD 2013 SC 829 @ pg. 
944 & 1002), State Life Insurance Employees Federation of 
Pakistan, Karachi Vs. Federal Government of Pakistan through, 
Secretary Commerce, Islamabad and 2 others (1994 SCMR 1341), 
Ardeshir Cowasjee and 10 others Vs. Karachi Building Control 
Authority (KMC), Karachi and 4 others (1999 SCMR 2883 @ pg. 
2912), All Pakistan Newspapers Society and others Vs. Federation 
of Pakistan and others (PLD 2004 SC 600@ pg. 621), Syed Zulfiqar 
Mehdi and others Vs. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation 
through M.D., Karachi and others (1998 SCMR 793 @ pg. 801), 
S.M. Waseem Ashraf Vs. Federation of Pakistan through 
Secretary, M/o Housing and Works, Islamabad and others (2013 
SCMR 338 @ pg. 345). He concluded his arguments by stating that 
the revised composite scheme introduced in 2001, as implemented in 
2003, acted upon and benefited from, cannot be challenged by the 
petitioners. In this behalf he relied on State Bank of Pakistan Vs. 
Khyber Zaman and others (2004 PLC (CS) 1213), State Bank of 
Pakistan through Governor and another Vs. Imtiaz Ali Khan and 
others (2012 SCMR 280), M.C.B. Bank Ltd., through Authorized 
Representative Vs. State Bank of Pakistan through Governor and 
2 others (2010 CLD 338), Trustees of the Port of Karachi Vs. 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 20 :-
Organization of Karachi Port Trust Workers and others (2013 
SCMR 238), Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Vs. Aziz-
ur-Rehman Chaudhry and another (2016 SCMR 14)  and Wali-ur-
Rehman and others Vs. State Life Insurance Corporation and 
others (2007 PLC (CS) 836). 
16. 
 
Mr. Ali Zafar, ASC appeared on behalf of the HBL. He 
stated that HBL was owned by the Agha Khan Foundation which was 
at the forefront of charitable work and would like to help the 
pensioners but within the law. There is no legal basis to foist the 
responsibilities of the Government onto HBL in a post-privatization 
scenario. His submissions with respect to the 1977 Notification were 
that it was issued by the Finance Division to the Pakistan Banking 
Council who would in turn instruct the bank. Therefore it has to be 
read with Section 9 of the Act 1974. When the Pakistan Banking 
Council 
stood 
dissolved 
through 
the 
Banks 
(Nationalization) 
(Amendment) Act XVIII 1997 in terms of Section 11 of the Act 1974 the 
powers previously vesting in the Council now came to vest in the Board 
of HBL. HBL’s Board consequently offered a new ‘deal’ to its’ employees 
whereby they benefitted by receiving enormous increases in their 
salaries while the pensionary benefits were changed. He submitted that 
after 1998 no employee was given any benefits under the original 
dispensation of the 1977 Notification and after HBL was privatized in 
2004 the pension scheme was abandoned altogether in favour of more 
beneficial Provident and Gratuity Funds. He stated that pension is not 
a fundamental right, but at best a contractual right and therefore the 
grievance of the pensioners is a private grievance. When questioned, he 
conceded that pension may be a statutory right too. The learned 
Counsel stated that the pensioners’ demand for increase in their 
pensions is not maintainable in terms of Article 184(3) of the 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 21 :-
Constitution. HBL is not owned/controlled by the Government and the 
functions test does not apply. The relationship inter se the HBL and 
the pensioners is of master and servant. Therefore relying on the ratio 
of the Abdul Wahab case (supra) the jurisdiction of Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution would not be attracted. He stated that even if, without 
conceding, the 1977 Notification is taken as a statutory instrument 
then it would not apply in perpetuity and certainly not after dissolution 
of the Pakistan Banking Council. If at all this Court decides that the 
pensioners are entitled to increase in their pensions it would be for the 
Government to make good on its commitments and on no account 
could a private bank such as HBL be burdened with the liabilities of 
the Government in a post privatization scenario. The government could 
fund such a liability through deficit financing funding and borrowing. 
However the bank required its capital for generating further income 
through giving out loans. He pointed out that particular petitioners 
being habitual litigants were disentitled to relief.  He relied on 
Muhammad Zaman and others Vs. Government of Pakistan 
through 
Secretary, 
Finance 
Division 
(Regulation 
Wing), 
Islamabad and others (2017 SCMR 571). 
17. 
 
Mr. Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, ASC on behalf of UBL 
submitted a detailed written note and chose not to make oral  
submissions on account of the fact that he would be repeating himself 
as Mr. Salman Butt, also appearing on behalf of UBL had earlier made 
the same arguments. His contentions will be reflected at relevant 
points of this opinion. 
18. 
 
Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, ASC appeared on behalf of ABL 
in CMA No.8200/2016. He stated that ABL was originally established 
as the Australasia bank in 1942 having its head office in Shah Chiragh 
Building in Lahore. It was nationalized in 1974 and denationalized on 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 22 :-
9.9.1991. Before nationalization there was a Contributory Provident 
Fund available for the employees of the bank to which they contributed 
8.33% of their salaries. The bank matched these contributions. There 
was also gratuity equal to one month’s salary for each year of 
completed service.  When the 1977 Notification (which he referred to as 
the 1977 “Letter”) came about there was no longer any contribution by 
the bank. It introduced a pension and a General Provident Fund 
scheme, with no contribution by the bank. Employees were repeatedly 
given the choice of joining the later schemes. This “Letter” is addressed 
to the Pakistan Banking Council. The “Letter” was not a statutory 
instrument notwithstanding Bahadur Khan case (supra). This Court 
had according to him, failed to consider certain provisions of the Act 
1974; it failed to consider section 11 and also the position that the 
government had 100% control of the bank and could anyway issue this 
Letter by way of instructions. When confronted with the fact that there 
was a judgment in the field (Bahadur Khan’s case), he adopted a novel 
approach. He stated that since this Court had failed to consider certain 
provisions of law in deciding the case, even a Civil Judge, 3rd Class 
would be entitled to ignore the same. We will not dignify this argument 
with so much as a rebuttal other than to say that we expect a better 
standard of arguments from counsel of this Court. Mr. Bajwa further 
stated that assuming, the “letter” was statutory it was repealed once 
the bank was privatized. In view of Section 5A of the Act 1974 the 
“letter” would cease to have any effect. No rights would accrue to the 
pensioners after privatization in 1991. In ABL’s case the freezing of 
salaries for pensions took place in 2002 (post-privatization). He referred 
to Muhammad Tariq Badr and another Vs. National Bank of 
Pakistan and others (2013 SCMR 314) as well as Saeed Ahmad Vs. 
The State (PLD 1964 SC 266 @ 290) to submit that repeal and 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 23 :-
amendment have the same effect. He also relied on Federation of 
Pakistan Vs. Muhammad Siddiq (PLD 1981 SC 249 @ 261) in this 
regard. He maintained that those who accepted VSS (Voluntary 
Separation Scheme) were not entitled to pensionary benefits on the 
basis of the ratio of State Bank of Pakistan through Governor and 
another Vs. Imtiaz Ali Khan and others (2012 P L C (C.S.) 218 @ 
para 28). Besides, according to him, the right to pension only accrues 
at retirement and not after ten years’ service. The learned counsel took 
similar grounds as the other counsels representing UBL and HBL with 
respect to lack of maintainability of the claims of the pensioners by 
urging that receiving pension was not a fundamental right. 
19. 
 
We had appointed Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Senior 
Advocate Supreme Court as Amicus Curiae in these matters to assist 
this Court and he very kindly agreed. He argued that there appeared to 
be consensus between both sides with respect to the fact that the 
jurisdiction of this Court would only be attracted in terms of Article 
184(3) of the Constitution if and when a matter involved both a 
question of fundamental rights and a question of public importance. 
The Abdul Wahab judgment (supra) calls these the two foundational 
principles. He then drew our attention to different fundamental rights 
enshrined in Chapter II of the Constitution. He stated that certain 
fundamental rights impose a duty on the state to do something or 
abstain from doing something (as defined in Article 7). These are 
therefore by their very nature enforceable against the State. As an 
example of this category of fundamental right he cited Article 8(2) 
which imposes upon the State a duty not to make any laws that may 
take away or abridge the rights of its citizens. Were the State to make 
such a law, this fundamental right would be enforceable against the 
State. Similarly the duty to ensure that citizens are afforded due 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 24 :-
process of law, or not subjected to double punishment; are duties 
which by their very nature are imposed on the State. This may be 
contrasted and compared with Article 9 or 14, where no person, 
including an individual and not just the State alone is barred from 
infringing a citizen’s right to life and liberty or dignity. The learned 
Amicus stated that this subtle difference may be better appreciated by 
comparing our Constitution with that of the US. In their system it is 
the Congress which is responsible for granting/ensuring fundamental 
rights. This means that in certain cases their Supreme Court has had 
to come up with novel and inventive ways to increase the amplitude of 
their reach. When we speak of right to life, is the only remedy available 
to a citizen lies under Article 199 or 184 for enforcement of the same? 
If it not available the court will not say that the right is not available, it 
will only say that the forum is wrong, approach the right forum. The 
question whether the person has locus standi to put the machinery of 
law into motion has never been a question of jurisdiction since the case 
of Col. Lt. Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan Vs (1) the 
Controller of Estate Duty etc. (PLD 1961 SC 119 @ 127), followed 
by The Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. Vs. Pakistan through the 
Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Works Division and 2 
others (PLD 1971 SC 279 @ 287), this Court said that the clauses 
relating to who is entitled to bring the case do not oust jurisdiction of 
the Court. Such clauses are procedural in nature and used by courts 
to regulate their own jurisdiction. 
20. 
 
Referring to the Wattan Party through President Vs. 
Federation 
of 
Pakistan 
through 
Cabinet 
Committee 
of 
Privatization, Islamabad and others (PLD 2006 SC 679 @ 717), Mr. 
Makhdoom Ali Khan stated that in that matter he had argued that 
when a larger bench of this Court had heard a matter relating to a 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 25 :-
large number of people it would by itself be treated as a matter of 
public importance. Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan then turned his attention 
to the language of Articles 199 (1) (a) (i) and 199 (1) (c) and stated that 
in terms of the latter there is no restriction per se on the power of this 
Court to issue a writ, only to a person performing functions in 
connection with the affairs of the Federation, Province etc. The writs of 
mandamus and prohibition can only be issued to a person performing 
functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, Province or a 
Local Authority. A writ of declaration is similarly limited in its scope. 
But this is in marked contrast to the “person” envisaged in Article 199 
(1)(c) where there is per se no apparent restriction on the power of 
Court to issue a writ only to a person performing functions in 
connection with the affairs of the Federation , a Province or a Local 
Authority. In terms of Article 199 (1) (b) the Court does not require an 
aggrieved person to relate to the Court that a person is being held in 
illegal custody where a writ of habeas corpus is contemplated. The 
same rule applies to a writ of quo warranto. He has pointed out the 
language of each of the sub-articles is different, in keeping with what is 
to be achieved. 
21. 
 
Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, referred to Human Rights 
Commission of Pakistan and 2 others Vs. Government of 
Pakistan and others (PLD 2009 SC 507 @ 527), relating to bonded 
labour being detained by a private party. Relying on the said judgment 
he stated that Article 199 and 184 confer a special jurisdiction on the 
High Court as well as this Court regarding enforcement of fundamental 
rights. Article 199 (1) (c) allows the Court, according to this judgment 
to issue a writ, even to a private person where another’s fundamental 
rights may otherwise be violated. He then referred to the definition of 
person as given in Article 199 (5) to argue that the words ‘body 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 26 :-
corporate’ are to be read disjunctively with the words ‘authority under 
the control of the government’. He maintained that natural person was 
not excluded from this definition. With respect to whether pension is a 
fundamental right he submitted that the question before this Court 
was not whether pension is or is not a fundamental right. According to 
him it was an admitted position that all the respondent banks were 
paying a pension were obviously doing so because they recognized the 
right of the employees to receive pension. Therefore the question then 
arises that once it is accepted that the pension is to be paid after an 
employee has put in a particular period of service, can the employer 
pay him a pension which denies him a right to life and livelihood? If 
pensioner can establish that the pension being given to him falls below 
a minimum threshold then a case for enforcement of fundamental 
rights is made out. He apprised us of the concept of minimum, fair and 
living wages and how these concepts may relate to pension. He went on 
to point out that as per a 2014 Notification by the Federal Government 
the minimum pension for a civil servant is Rs. 6000 per month 
whereas the minimum pension paid by EOBI to retired workers who 
are registered with the Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI) 
is Rs. 5,500 per month. Similarly the norm in most other departments 
is that after commutation about 60% of the pension is paid to a retiree 
and therefore 60% of the minimum wage established by the Federal 
government may be taken as another benchmark of the minimum 
threshold of pension to be set by the Court. The cases of termination 
from service were however distinguished by the learned counsel as 
being those where the nature of the grievance was a personal one. He 
pointed out the Abdul Wahab case (supra) may be distinguished on 
this basis. He stated that the matter of payment of pensions was a 
national issue, and it needs to be determined if an employer can freeze 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 27 :-
pension at a level which denies the employee the right to life? If the 
answer is in the negative, then the matter crosses both thresholds of 
being a matter of fundamental rights and being one of public 
importance. 
22. 
 
The learned Amicus submitted that in this particular case, 
this Court may not need to go as far as the area covered in Human 
Rights Commission of Pakistan and 2 others Vs. Government of 
Pakistan and others (PLD 2009 SC 507). This is for the reason that 
if at all new parameters have to be determined, it may be more 
appropriate for a larger bench to do so. He further submits that this 
matter may be decided without taking an overly expansive view of 
Article 199 (1)(c). He maintains that in suitable and appropriate cases 
this Court may apply the functions test even to a private 
person/entity who performs a public function. He submits that in 
applying the function test the court can take into consideration the fact 
that the current majority shareholders, at the time of signing the 
privatization agreement with the State, purchased the shares of the 
government at a price which they were or should have been aware 
(being savvy businessmen), factored in the value of the assets as well 
as the possible liabilities. Having made the offer at that time, they took 
over the pubic liabilities/obligations of the State which included 
obligations with respect to payment of pensions in terms of the 1977 
Notification. Having taken over all rights and liabilities they cannot now 
be allowed to keep the assets but walk away from the liabilities and 
obligations. He argues that another possible test is that where a private 
person takes over a public obligation/duty/liability to which the State 
was committed, such private person cannot later on say when it is true 
to discharge the obligation that it should be treated as a private person 
and hence beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction of the court. When the 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 28 :-
privatization agreements were examined, it was apparent that the 
banks took over assets and assumed the liabilities as well; had 
liabilities been excluded perhaps the government would have priced the 
shares differently. He relied on Shri Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree 
Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak 
Trust and others Vs. V.R. Rudani and others (AIR 1989 SC 1607) 
to support his contention. Relying on the Bahadur Khan case (supra) 
he argued that the 1977 Notification was statutory in nature; but even 
if it is taken as non-statutory, it was still a solemn commitment by the 
employer (the State) to its employees for nearly twenty years. Since 
then the employer (Limited Company) has not changed. Only the 
shareholders have changed. The sovereign shareholder has sold its 
shareholding to private shareholders. Had the government sold only 
the assets a case could have been made out that the liability remained 
with the government which is clearly not the case. Referring to the 
concept of judicial engagement, the learned counsel submitted that the 
instant set of cases, in their peculiar set of facts and circumstances 
provided a perfect opportunity for judicial engagement. The court can 
and should exercise jurisdiction and engage with the respondent banks 
to ease the genuine miseries of the petitioners. He submits that a 
reasonable formula can be agreed upon with mutual consultation to 
ameliorate the miseries of the petitioners. He however stated that any 
increase (if) granted to the pensioners ought to be prospective. 
23. 
 
Mr. Waqar Rana, Additional Attorney General, addressed 
us briefly and stated that the government remains a shareholder in 
these banks and its liability is limited only to the extent of its 
shareholding. The claim to a pension is a right to property in terms of 
Article 23 and 24 in addition to right to life in terms of Article 9.  
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 29 :-
Therefore the petitions are maintainable in law. However, he states that 
the Federation takes no stance with respect to the merits of the case. 
24. 
 
We heard the learned counsels at great length and 
perused the voluminous record. During the course of the hearing of the 
case we called the presidents/chief executives of the banks who 
appeared before us: they independently apprised us that all the banks 
are before us engaged in many separate charitable endeavors and take 
their corporate social responsibility very seriously. They sought time to 
come up with a scheme to address the grievances of the pensioners.  
25. 
 
The question is once pension is being paid, whether 
under statutory provision, common law or contract, can it be in an 
amount so modest that it denies the pensioner a decent living, 
thereby denying him/her the right to life? Article 14 of our 
Constitution provides protection to the citizens of our country. 
Dignity of man shall be inviolable as envisaged in Article 14 of the 
Constitution. If a man serves his employer for a number of years, 
during the prime of his life and gives of his honest labour to his 
employer and where he is promised pension, whether under statute, 
common law or contract then he should be able to plan his financial 
future for his declining years keeping in mind such promises of a 
pension. When that pension is given but is of a sum which is illusory 
and by no amount of prudent budgeting can it be used to sustain a 
man independently, and forces him to turn to his children or other 
relatives/sources for ‘help’, offends against his dignity. To subject a 
pensioner to a life of penury and impoverishment, is a clear violation 
of his fundamental rights to life and dignity as enshrined in Articles 9 
and 14 respectively. The entitlement to pension is not a fundamental 
right but must be duly earned.  Once that right has been perfected 
and earned, as has been by the petitioners, it is no longer a question 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 30 :-
whether they are entitled to the pension or not. The fundamental 
right that is to be enforced is that the pension given to such 
pensioners must be of a level which allows them to keep body and 
soul together.  
26. 
 
We are happy to note that on being called upon and 
encouraged by us the boards of the banks showed generosity, 
magnanimity, great sense of corporate social responsibility to come up 
with a scheme whereby there will be an immediate and substantial 
increase in the minimum pension paid to the pensioners. The 
minimum amount voluntarily offered by the banks was Rs.5,250/- per 
month. The offer is without prejudice to the legal stance taken by the 
banks in this case and without prejudice to their objections as to the 
maintainability etc. of the present petitions. We therefore refrain from 
recording any finding on the merits of the case or the question of 
maintainability or the question  whether a writ can be issued against a 
private/privatized bank/party/entity leaving these matters to be 
examined in some appropriate case. However, using our discretion in 
the matter, we enhance the aforesaid amount voluntarily offered by the 
banks and we direct as follows: 
1. 
With immediate effect the minimum pension paid to any 
pensioner (including their widows, where applicable) of 
UBL, HBL and ABL will be Rs. 8,000 (rupees eight 
thousand) per month. 
2. 
The payments will be prospective, that is, from the date 
of this judgment. 
3. 
There will be an increase of 5% in the aforesaid pension 
every year, effective on the 1st of January every year. 
4. 
The aforesaid pension will be paid to all three categories 
of pensioners mentioned above, i.e. the “original retirees”, 
those whose pensions were linked to basic pay “frozen” in 
past years, and in the case of UBL to retrenched 
employees  including  those who had served the bank for 
 
more than ten years on the date of retrenchment. For 
 
S.M.C.No.20/2016 etc. 
-: 31 :-
 
avoidance of doubt it is clarified that the pension of 
employees who are receiving sums in excess of 
Rs.8,000/- shall continue to do so, and those whose 
pension would fall below the minimum pension (after 5% 
annual increase, effective on the 1st of January) they 
shall be paid the minimum pension with 5% annual 
increase. However, those who have availed the benefit of 
VSS (Voluntary Separation Scheme) or Golden Handshake 
Scheme will not be benefitted by this judgment. 
 
27. 
 
We would like to take this opportunity to express our 
heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sr. ASC for his able 
assistance and valuable input which greatly helped us in deciding 
this matter. 
28. 
 
In view of the above, the matter stands disposed of. 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
13th of February, 2018 
Approved for reporting 
Waqas Naseer