2018 PLP 2116 (SCMR)
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Petitioner Versus AHMED ALI BHAMBHRO and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 PLP 2116 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar, C.J., Sajjad Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Petitioner Versus AHMED ALI BHAMBHRO and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | National Insurance Corporation Employees' Pension Funds Regulation, 1986 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 2116 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: National Insurance Corporation Employees' Pension Funds Regulation, 1986 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 2116 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, C.J., Sajjad Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 2116 (SCMR) (NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Petitioner Versus AHMED ALI BHAMBHRO and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Ebrahim, Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Sanaullah Noor Ghori, Advocate Supreme Court and Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 10.5.2017 passed by the High Court of Sindh in C.P. No. D-4428/2014)
Regln. 6(3)
Pensionary benefits of transferred employee
Respondent-employee was transferred from Pakistan National Produce Company Limited to the National Insurance Corporation Limited ("the Insurance Corporation") under an administrative order of the competent authority on the basis that the former company had been wound up
At the time of his retirement, question arose about the pensionary benefits of the respondent for the period he spent in his erstwhile company i.e. Pakistan National Produce Company Limited (PNPCL)
On the refusal of his pensionary benefits, the respondent approached the High Court, which through the impugned order granted him the pensionary benefits for the period for which he had been serving in the erstwhile company
Plea of Insurance Corporation that pensionary benefits were not available to the respondent under the rules of his erstwhile company and besides Regulation No. 6(3) of National Insurance Corporation Employees' Pension Funds Regulation, 1986 prohibited pensionary benefits until and unless expressly and unequivocally granted to an employee
Respondent was not working in Insurance Corporation on deputation rather in compelling circumstances he had been transferred, therefore, provisions of Regln. 6(3) had no relevance to the present case
Record did not show whether the erstwhile company did not carry a pension scheme, therefore, respondent's pensionary benefits for the period he had served in the erstwhile company could not be denied
Appeal filed by Insurance Corporation against judgment of High Court was dismissed accordingly. Respondents Nos. 2 - 4 ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, C.J.
The respondent was transferred from Pakistan National Produce Company Limited to the National Insurance Corporation Limited under an administrative order of the competent authority on the basis of Function Test as the Company where he was earlier serving had been wound up. At the time of his retirement, the question arose about the pensionary benefits for the period he spent in his erstwhile Company. On the refusal of his pensionary benefits, the respondent approached the High Court and the learned High Court through the impugned order had granted him the pensionary benefits for the period to which he had been serving in Pakistan National Produce Company Limited (PNPCL).
2. Mr. Zahid Ibrahim learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Regulation No. 6(3) of National Insurance Corporation Employees' Pension Funds Regulation, 1986 to argue that as the pensionary benefits were not available under the rules of the Company where he had been earlier working and beside, this rule by itself prohibits the pensionary benefits until and unless expressly and unequivocally granted to the respondent/employee. The said Regulation reads as under:- "6(3). In case an employee of any other organization is permanently absorbed in the service of the Corporation, the Corporation may accept the pensionary liability in respect of such an employee subject to the condition that pension scheme exist in the former organization from where the employee has been transferred and that organization pays the proportionate liability for the period the employee remained in their service. Such pension contribution will be recovered from the concerned organization at the rate approved by the Corporation."
3. We find that in the facts and circumstances where the respondent has not been worked on deputation rather in the compelling circumstances had been transferred and it is not on record as to whether his earlier service in PNPCL did not carry pension scheme, therefore, his pensionary benefits for the period he had served in the earlier company can not be denied. In such situation, the provisions of Regulation 6(3) reproduced above, have no relevance. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. MWA/N-6/SC Appeal dismissed.