Islamabad High Court Holds That Constitutional Jurisdiction May Be Invoked for Pensionary Rights Irrespective of Whether Service Rules Are Statutory
By BLI — Bangash Legal Insights | A Publication of Bangash & Co.
Case Title: Zafar Ullah Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and others
Citation: 2025 PLC (C.S.) 1462
Court: Islamabad High Court
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Asif
Writ Petition: W.P. No. 2989 of 2024
Date of Decision: 28 July 2025
The Islamabad High Court, in Zafar Ullah Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2025 PLC (C.S.) 1462), has reaffirmed a critical constitutional principle: the non-statutory character of an employer’s service rules does not prevent the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 when the grievance involves the enforcement of a fundamental right.
The judgment arose from a constitutional petition filed by retired employees of Pakistan Television Corporation (PTVC) seeking payment of their outstanding commutation amounts. Rejecting PTVC’s preliminary objections regarding its corporate status and non-statutory service rules, the Court held that internal or non-statutory regulations cannot operate as a shield against constitutional guarantees.
The petitioners, all retired PTVC employees, sought their earned commutation amounts forming part of their post-retirement benefits. PTVC resisted the petition on several grounds:
Corporate Status: PTVC is a public limited company incorporated under corporate law.
Internal Regulations: PTVC operates under its own Pension Rules framed by its Board of Directors rather than a statutory scheme.
Provident Fund Regime: Employees were governed by a Contributory Provident Fund rather than the statutory pension regime applicable to Federal Civil Servants.
Procedural Invalidation: The PTVC Pension Rules had not been referred to the Finance Division under the Rules of Business, 1973.
The Court was required to resolve two core legal questions:
Question I: Is PTVC amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution?
Question II: Can petitioners invoke constitutional protection for pensionary and commutation rights despite the non-statutory nature of PTVC’s service rules?
1. Amenability of PTVC to Constitutional Jurisdiction
The Court looked beyond PTVC’s legal form as a corporate body, examining the actual degree of government control and public function:
Dominant Control: The Federal Government holds the majority shareholding and maintains administrative and financial control over PTVC.
Public Function: As a national public service broadcaster, PTVC performs public duties.
Corporate Governance Rules: Under Rule 2(1)(g) of the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, PTVC qualifies as a public sector company.
Key Appointments: Key executive positions (Managing Director and General Managers) are appointed directly by the Federal Government, with emoluments drawn from the public exchequer.
Relying on Pir Imran Sajid v. TIP (2015 SCMR 1257) and 2019 SCMR 1, the Court held that PTVC is a “person” performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation for the purposes of Article 199.
2. Statutory Status of Rules is Not Determinative
The core precedent set by the judgment appears in Paragraph 7:
“Where the underlying grievance concerns the deprivation of a constitutionally protected right, the High Court may examine the matter under its constitutional jurisdiction irrespective of whether the service rules are statutory or non-statutory.”
Ordinarily, non-statutory service disputes fall outside constitutional writ jurisdiction. However, the Court clarified that an employer cannot invoke the non-statutory character of its internal rules to defeat a constitutional claim where fundamental rights are directly infringed.
3. Accrued Rights Cannot Be Defeated by Procedural Lapses
PTVC contended that its Pension Rules were invalid because they were never referred to the Finance Division. The Court rejected this defense:
The rules were framed by a competent authority and remained in active force when the petitioners retired.
Administrative omissions (such as failure to seek Finance Division concurrence) fall on the management, not the employees.
Rules remain valid and binding until formally repealed or amended in accordance with the law.
Key Rule: Procedural compliance is the responsibility of management. Internal administrative lapses cannot be weaponized to deprive employees of rights accrued under active rules.
4. Pension as a Fundamental Right (Articles 9 & 25)
The Court elevated the right to pensionary benefits to the realm of constitutional guarantees:
┌───────────────────────────┐
│ CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS │
└─────────────┬─────────────┘
│
┌──────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐
│ ARTICLE 9 │ │ ARTICLE 25 │
│ Right to Life │ │ Equality │
└────────┬────────┘ └────────┬────────┘
│ │
• Life = Dignified Living • Arbitrary distinctions
• Pension = Livelihood between state entities &
• Earned Right, Not Bounty civil servants barred
Article 9 (Right to Life & Livelihood): Citing I.A. Sherwani (1991 SCMR 1041), Re: Pensionary Benefits of Judges (PLD 2013 SC 829), and Muhammad Yousaf v. Province of Sindh (2024 SCMR 1689), the Court held that pension is an earned right acquired through service—not a discretionary bounty. Pension serves as a continuous source of post-retirement livelihood, bringing it within the scope of Article 9.
Article 25 (Equality Before Law): Denying statutory-equivalent pensionary rights to employees of state-owned entities performing public functions under dominant state control creates an unconstitutional, arbitrary classification.
5. Corporate Financial Crisis Is No Defense
The Court explicitly rejected PTVC’s defense of financial hardship, holding that administrative financial strain cannot unilaterally extinguish an employee’s vested statutory or constitutional entitlement.
6. Quantum of Relief and Alternate Remedy
The petition was partially allowed:
Granted: The Court directed PTVC to process and release the petitioners’ accrued commutation amounts within two months.
Declined: A separate prayer regarding the proceeds of NIT Units was declined. The Court held that corporate asset management disputes fell outside the scope of Article 199 as an adequate alternate remedy existed under company law.
Key Takeaways
Corporate Form vs. State Control: Corporate incorporation under company law will not shield an entity from writ jurisdiction if dominant state control and public functions are established.
Constitutional Override: Non-statutory service regulations do not preclude Article 199 proceedings when an infringement of fundamental rights (Articles 9 or 25) is pleaded.
Vested Rights Protection: Employees are not liable for internal executive omissions or procedural non-compliance committed by corporate management.
Scope Limitations: Article 199 remains a specialized jurisdiction; pure commercial or corporate claims against state enterprises still require recourse to alternate legal remedies.
Bangash Legal Insights (BLI) is an authoritative legal analysis publication powered by Bangash & Co.
