SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, CJ 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan 
 
 
 
 
Civil Appeal No.527 of 2020 
[Against the judgment dated 18.06.2019, passed by the Lahore High Court, 
Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Writ Petition No.785 of 2014] 
 
 
The Controller Military Accounts (Pension) 
Lahore Cantonment and others.  
 
…Appellants (s) 
Versus 
Muhammad Sabir (deceased) through L.Rs. 
and others. 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Mr. 
Ayaz 
Shaukat, 
Deputy 
Attorney General for Pakistan 
Imtiaz Ahmed, Assistant Accounts 
Officer 
 
  
For the Respondent(s) 
(Legal Heirs) 
: Malik Muhammad Asghar (son of 
Muhammad Sabir, deceased) 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 03.12.2020 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
 
Gulzar Ahmed, CJ.— Respondent No.1, Muhammad 
Sabir (the Respondent), was a reservist in the Pakistan Army and 
was discharged. He was being paid special pension payable to 
reservists as per the Pension Regulations of Armed Forces. The 
Federal Government issued Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1988, 
by which the minimum pension was fixed at Rs.300/- per month. 
Through a further Office Memorandums dated 02.07.2008, the 
minimum pension was increased to Rs.2,000/- per month, then to 
Rs.3,000/- per month from 05.07.2010 and to Rs.5,000/- per 
month from 16.07.2013. The minimum pension was not allowed to 
the respondent, who then filed a writ petition in the Lahore High 
Civil Appeal No.527 of 2020 (Approved for Reporting) 
- 2 - 
 
 
 
Court, Rawalpindi Bench (the High Court) claiming that he was 
entitled to be paid the minimum pension. The High Court, by the 
impugned judgment dated 18.06.2019, allowed the writ petition 
and directed the appellants to pay the minimum pension to the 
respondent and set aside the Notifications dated 27.05.1989, 
14.11.2008 and 09.07.2009 denying the minimum pension to the 
respondent.  
2.  
 
We have heard the learned Deputy Attorney General 
for Pakistan (the DAG) so also Malik Muhammad Asghar, son of 
Muhammad Sabir, the deceased respondent. 
3. 
 
The learned DAG has contended that the respondent, 
being a reservist, was not entitled to payment of the minimum 
pension for the reason that a reservist is not a regular Armed 
Forces Personnel, rather is a reserve whose service can be called 
upon by the Army if and when required. During the period a 
reservist’s service is not required, he is entitled to engage himself 
in any service for his monetary gain. He has further contended that 
the reservists are persons, who do not have active qualifying 
service for pension and are therefore, granted special pension at a 
fixed rate provided in the Pension Regulations.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, Malik Muhammad Asghar, son of 
the deceased respondent, has supported the impugned judgment. 
5. 
 
It is noted that the Federal Government, under Section 
176-A of the Pakistan Army Act 1952, has issued the Pension 
Regulations for Armed Forces and such Pension Regulations have 
been updated, corrected and amended from time to time.  
6. 
 
The respondent was discharged as a reservist in or 
about 1973. He was issued a Pension Book, where the class of 
Civil Appeal No.527 of 2020 (Approved for Reporting) 
- 3 - 
 
 
 
pension was noted as “Proportionate SPR”. The respondent 
continuously received such pension along with increases granted 
by the Federal Government from time to time. Through Office 
Memorandum dated 01.07.1988, the Federal Government directed 
that with effect from 01.07.1988 no gross pension of a retired 
government employee, including those paid from Defence Services 
Estimates as sanctioned under the Rules would be less than 
Rs.300/- per month. The Federal Government also issued Office 
Memorandums dated 02.07.2008, 05.07.2010 and 16.07.2013 by 
which the minimum pension of the government employees and 
those paid from Defence Services Estimates were increased to 
Rs.2,000/-, Rs.3,000/-, Rs.5,000/-per month respectively. 
7. 
 
The Controller Military Pensions addressed a letter 
dated 03.12.2013 to the Chief Postmaster (Pension), Rawalpindi, 
GPO that a special pensioner cannot be granted the minimum 
pension announced by the Government from time to time as per 
the clarification issued by the Military Accountant General’s letters 
dated 27.05.1989, 14.11.2008 and 09.07.2009. A perusal of the 
above mentioned letters of the Controller Military Pensions shows 
that special reservist pensioners drawing a special pension have 
been excluded from being paid the minimum pension as 
sanctioned by the Federal Government. Not much of a reason has 
been given as to why such minimum pension is not admissible to 
the special reservist pensioners drawing special pension. The 
Controller of Military Accounts in his report filed in the High Court 
has given the following reason for non-payment of the minimum 
pension to the reservists:- 
 
“It is submitted that Special Pension is granted to those 
individuals who do not complete the service limit prescribed 
Civil Appeal No.527 of 2020 (Approved for Reporting) 
- 4 - 
 
 
 
for the rank and discharge from service before completing the 
15 years colour service. Such individuals are placed on 
reserve liability and discharged on completion of reserve 
period. As per para 5 of the New Pension Code such 
individuals are entitled for grant of fixed rates of Special 
Pension when they are discharged on completion of more than 
15 years, colour + Reserve Service. Copies of page No. 29 and 
30 of New Pension Code are enclosed as per Annexure “B”. 
The same rules have been incorporated in Pension Regulation 
Vol-I 1986, 1999 and 2010. Copy of rule 65 of pension 
Regulation Vol-1 2010 is enclosed as per Annexure "C. 
 
It is submitted that the minimum pension is admissible to 
those pensioners who complete the service limit prescribed for 
the rank,  therefore, the reservist pensioners are not at par, 
hence not entitled for minimum pension as per clarification of 
the MAG Rawalpindi issued vide letter No. AT/Pen/3336-VI 
dated 27-05-1989 (page 26 of the writ petition). It is further 
submitted that the claim for grant of Special Pension is 
submitted by the executive i.e. commandant of concerned 
Record Wing duly signed by the individual, wherein he 
requests for grant of Special Pension.” 
8. 
 
A copy of the Pension Code has been attached with the 
report as Annexure ‘B’ and Item 5 thereof provides for Service 
Qualifying for Pension. Clauses (d) & (e) thereof deal with the 
reserve service, which are as follows: - 
(d) One-half of a reserve service will count as pensionable 
service in the case of persons recalled to colours or called up 
for Active Service. 
(e) A person discharged from the Reserve, after a prescribed 
period at combined Colour/Active and Reserve qualifying 
service of not less than 15 years, will be eligible for a special 
pension at the following rates: 
(i)            Those who are recalled [released] from Reserve without 
having drawn pay in the revised scales effective from 1-12-
1962. 
                                                   
Sepoy  
Naik 
) 
) 
& equivalent ranks 
in the Navy and Air 
Force 
=Rs.10/- P.M. 
=Rs.13/- 
Hav 
) 
  
=Rs.15/- 
J.C.O 
) 
  
=Rs.25/- 
  
(ii)           Those who are released from Reserve after having 
drawn pay in the revised scales of pay effective from 1-12-62. 
Sepoy 
Naik 
) 
) 
& equivalent ranks in 
the Navy and Air Force 
=Rs.20/- P.M. 
=Rs.25/- 
Hav 
) 
  
=Rs.30/- 
J.C.O 
) 
  
=Rs.50/- 
 
NOTE: Para 5 (d) & (e) modified vide Ministry of Defence No. F. 
383/D.45/69 dated 10-9-1969. 
Civil Appeal No.527 of 2020 (Approved for Reporting) 
- 5 - 
 
 
 
  
When the qualifying service is 10 years or more but less than 15 
years, a proportionate pension based on the above rates will be 
admissible. 
NOTE: (i)  
Reserve 
Service 
not 
involving 
periodical 
training will not reckon as pensionable service. 
(ii) 
Reserve Service not preceded by Colour Service 
without 
a 
break 
will 
not 
reckon 
as 
pensionable.” 
9. 
 
The above portion of the Pension Code shows that 
reservists are paid a special pension, the rate of which has been 
fixed in the Code itself. It also provides that where qualifying 
service is 10 years or more but less than 15 years, a proportionate 
pension based on the rates will be admissible.  
10. 
 
The High Court, in the impugned judgment, has 
proceeded to consider the case on the basis that the Office 
Memorandums issued by the Federal Government does not 
distinguish the class of pensioners, who are to be granted 
minimum pension and noted that the sanction of the Federal 
Government of minimum pension is for all classes of pensioners, 
without any discrimination. The High Court also noted that the 
appellants were not competent to vary or modify the decision of the 
Federal  Government  by  interpretation  or  clarification.                
In   the case  of  I.A. Sharwani  and  others vs. Government of 
Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others  
(1991 SCMR 1041), a  five  member  bench  of  this  Court           
on  the  question  of reasonable  classification  held  that “equal  
protection  of  law  does  not  envisage   that   every   citizen            
is  to  be  treated  alike  in  all circumstances, but it contemplates  
that persons similarly situated or similarly placed are to be treated 
alike”. The Court further held that “in order to make a classification 
reasonable, it should be based upon an intelligible differentia, which 
Civil Appeal No.527 of 2020 (Approved for Reporting) 
- 6 - 
 
 
 
distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those 
who have been left out; that the differentia must have rationale 
nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such classification”.  
11. 
 
On the basis of this authority, we note that the very 
Pension Regulations of the Armed Forces has created a class of 
reservist pensioners and this class of reservist pensioners has been 
created on the basis that one-half of a reserve service will be 
counted as pensionable service in case of a person recalled to the 
colours or called up for active service and a person discharged 
from 
the 
reserve 
after 
a 
prescribed 
period 
of 
combined 
colour/active and reserve qualifying service of not less than 15 [10] 
years will be eligible for a special pension at the rates mentioned 
therein.  
12. 
 
The Pakistan (Army and Air Force) Reserves Act, 1950, 
provides for the creation of a Division of reserve force in the 
Pakistan Army. By Section 6, the Federal Government has been 
given the power to make rules to carry out the purposes of the said 
Act, including providing for the constitution of, and the 
appointment or transfer of any person as a reservist to the 
reserves, to regulate the pay and allowances of a reservist, and to 
provide for and regulate the gratuities or compensation, if any, to 
be paid to reservists or any category of reservists or to any 
dependents of reservists. Pursuant to the said Act, the Pakistan 
Army Reserves Rules, 1974 were made. Rule 3 of the rules 
provides that all the reservists other than Junior Commissioned 
Officer shall be subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 and the 
rules and regulations made thereunder only when called up by the 
competent authority for service in the Army or for training. Rule 11 
Civil Appeal No.527 of 2020 (Approved for Reporting) 
- 7 - 
 
 
 
thereof deals with the pay and allowance during training and 
recalled Army service and provides that pay and allowances to 
which a reservist is entitled shall be admissible from the date on 
which he leaves his place of residence or employment for the place 
of training or duty up-to the date of his return to his residence or 
place of employment on completion of duty or training, provided 
that he has no entitlement of pay and allowances for the period of 
the journey from the other source, Government or Semi-
Government.                 
13. 
 
The Pension Book of the respondent, a copy of which 
is filed with the writ petition, shows the class of pension of the 
respondent as “proportionate SPR” and having the rank of sepoy, 
he was paid proportionate pension of the rate fixed in the above 
Code. Now, a pensioner whose class is that of a fixed rate and that 
too proportionate of a fixed rate will at all admit of a class of 
pensioners, who are allowed minimum pension. The law does allow 
classification of pensioners into different groups with different 
amounts of pensions admissible to the respective groups. The 
condition, as in respect of government employee, is that it should 
be so determined by statute, rules or regulations duly made by the 
competent forum. We see from the Army Pension Code, which is 
admittedly made as Regulations under Section 176-A of the Army 
Act, 1952 that the reservist is a separate class or group of Army 
Pensioners. The main reason for this classification is that the 
reservists are paid fixed rated pension as fixed by the Army 
Pension Code, whereas the remaining classifications are of those, 
who are Retiring Pensioners, Invalid Pensioners, Superannuation 
Pensioners and Compensatory Pensioners and their pensions are 
Civil Appeal No.527 of 2020 (Approved for Reporting) 
- 8 - 
 
 
 
not provided for in the Army Pension Code to be fixed rated, rather 
their pensions are counted on their having qualifying period of 
service and last pay drawn etc.. Thus, the classification of reservist 
pensioners is quite distinct from other classes of pensioners in the 
Army.  
14.   
Now, we come to deal with the question of whether 
reservist pensioners of Army could be allowed minimum pension. 
As noted above in the Army Pension Code, reservists are fixed 
rated pensioners. The word “rate” is used in Item 5 of the Code and 
the rates of pensioners are also mentioned against the ranks. The 
Four Office Memorandums issued by the Federal Government 
providing for minimum pensions are as follows: - 
“Finance Division O.M. No.F-9(12) Reg.(6)/88(A) dated 
01.07.1988 
 
“The President has been pleased to direct that with effect from 
01.07.1988 no gross pension of a retired government 
employee, including those paid from Defence Services 
Estimates as sanctioned under the Rules would be less than 
Rs.300/- per month. 
 
Finance Division O.M. No. F.15(1)-Reg.6/2008 dated 
02.07.2008 
 
“The undersigned is directed to refer to Finance Division’s 
O.M. No.9(12)-Reg.6/88-(A) dated 01.07.1988 on the subject 
cited above and to state that the President has been pleased 
to sanction with effect from 1st July, 2008 the increase in 
minimum pension from Rs.300/- p.m. to Rs.2000/- p.m. to 
civil pensioners of the Federal Government including civilians 
paid from Defence Estimates as well as Armed Forces 
Personnel.” 
 
Finance Division O.M. No. F.15(1)-Reg.6/2010/777 dated 
05.07.2010 
 
“The undersigned is directed to refer to Finance Division’s 
O.M. No.15(1)-Reg.6/2008 dated 02.07.2008 on the subject 
cited above and to state that the President has been pleased 
to sanction with effect from 1st July, 2010 the increase in 
minimum pension from Rs.2000/- p.m. to Rs.3000/- to civil 
pensioners of the Federal government including civilians paid 
from Defence Estimates as well as Armed Forces Personnel.” 
 
Finance Division O.M. No. F.15(1)-Reg.6/2010-1375 dated 
16.07.2013 
 
“The undersigned is directed to refer to Finance Division’s 
O.M. No.15(1)-Reg.6/2010 dated 05.07.2010 on the subject 
cited above and to state that the President has been pleased 
Civil Appeal No.527 of 2020 (Approved for Reporting) 
- 9 - 
 
 
 
to sanction with effect from 1st July, 2013 the increase in 
minimum pension from Rs.3000/- p.m. to Rs.5000/- to civil 
pensioners of the Federal government including civilians paid 
from Defence Estimates as well as Armed Forces Personnel.” 
 
 
 
The first of the above quoted Office Memorandum dated 
01.07.1988, specifically provides that “no gross pension of a retired 
government employee, including those paid from Defence Services 
Estimates as sanctioned under the Rules would be less than 
Rs.300/- per month”. The remaining three Office Memorandums 
dated 02.07.2008, 05.07.2010 and 16.07.2013, as they read, have 
been issued in continuation of the first Office Memorandum 
because they specifically and respectively make reference to the 
earlier Office Memorandum. This means that the condition or 
conditions mentioned in the first Office Memorandum have to be 
read in the remaining three Office Memorandums. This is also so 
because the subject of the first Office Memorandum was 
“minimum pension” and the remaining three Office Memorandums 
also deal with the same subject i.e. “minimum pension”. This 
interpretation is in accord with the principle of interpretation of 
statutes in pari materia and in Crawford: the Construction of 
Statutes (1940) at pages 433-434 has dealt with it as follows: - 
 
 
“The rule which thus allows the Court to resort to 
statutes in pari materia finds its justification in the 
assumption that statutes relating to the same subject matter 
were enacted in accord with the same legislative policy; that 
together they constitute a harmonious or uniform system of 
law; and that, therefore, in order to maintain this harmony, 
every statute treating the same subject matter should be 
considered. As a result, statutes in pari materia should not 
only be considered but also construed to be in harmony with 
each other in order that each may be fully effective. They are 
to be construed together as if they constituted one act.” 
 
 
Read on this established rule of interpretation, the foremost 
thing that catches our attention is that the first Office 
Memorandum has its application to a retired government 
Civil Appeal No.527 of 2020 (Approved for Reporting) 
- 10 - 
 
 
 
employee, including those paid from Defence Services Estimates. 
The words “including those” in this Office Memorandum cannot be 
given any extended meaning but to be construed ejusdem generis 
i.e., those paid from Defence Services Estimates will not be anyone 
but a retired employee paid from Defence Services Estimates. 
Thus, the first Office Memorandum has its application to retired 
government employees and retired employees paid from Defence 
Services Estimates and same is the effect of the remaining three 
Office Memorandums. The respondent, in para-4 of the writ 
petition, has admitted that he was discharged as a reservist and 
that he was granted special pension of Rs.40/- per month. The 
respondent has nowhere alleged that he was a retired employee 
paid from Defence Services Estimates. Being not a retired 
employee, the four Office Memorandums have no application to the 
respondent and the respondent is not entitled to the grant of a 
minimum pension as prescribed by the said four Office 
Memorandums and subsequent Office Memorandums issued on 
the same subject.  
15. 
 
We also note that the respondent, being a fixed rated 
pensioner, was not entitled to the minimum pension, for that, the 
scheme of minimum pension does not fit, in the scheme of fix rated 
pension. We also note while announcing minimum pension by the 
Office Memorandums, the Federal Government did not change or 
alter the fixed rates of pensions of reservists as prescribed by the 
Army Pension Code. As from time to time the Army Pension Code 
has been amended by the Federal Government and the last 
mentioned amendment appears to have been made in 2010, where 
Civil Appeal No.527 of 2020 (Approved for Reporting) 
- 11 - 
 
 
 
Army Reservists are shown to be entitled to fix rate of special 
pension.   
16. 
    
We also note that reservists comprise of reserve forces 
created by the Pakistan (Army and Air Force) Reserves Act, 1950 
with their rules of service by the name of the Pakistan Army 
Reserve Rules, 1974. The Reserve Force of the Pakistan Army is a 
distinct force from the regular Pakistan Army Force created under 
the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. This narration itself shows that a 
reservist or Reserve Force is a distinct class of force from that of a 
regular Pakistan Army Force.  
17. 
 
The High Court in the impugned judgment has not 
considered the matter in the light of the above mentioned 
applicable facts and laws and thus, passed the judgment, which is 
not sustainable in law. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and 
the impugned judgment is set aside. The writ petition filed by the 
respondent is dismissed.    
 
 
 
Bench-I 
Islamabad  
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
03.12.2020 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
Rabbani*/ 
JUDGE 
 
Announced in open Court on 1st April, 2021 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE