2025 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

KH. MUHAMMAD NASIM, J.

The respondents in this case were permanent employees of the Development Authority Muzaffarabad (DAM), serving in various capacities. They retired upon reaching the age of superannuation. However, despite the considerable passage of time, the pensionary benefits owed to them have not been disbursed. As a result, they filed two writ petitions before the High Court, seeking a direction for payment of their pensionary benefits. The learned High Court, after due proceedings, accepted the writ petitions through the impugned judgment and directed that the respondents be paid their dues as per their entitlement in accordance with law. Furthermore, the High Court directed the Secretary Physical Planning and Housing (PPH) and the Finance Department to manage the funds for the pension payments forthwith.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a single ground for grant of leave. He argued that under Section 12 of the Development Authority Muzaffarabad Act, 1989 (hereinafter Act, 1989) the responsibility for paying pensions lies with the Development Authority itself, which must bear the costs from its own budget. He contended that the learned High Court did not consider this aspect while directing the petitioners to arrange for necessary ftmds for payment of pension.

3. The learned counsel for the private respondents, Mr. Nasir Masood Mughal, raised a preliminary objection, asserting that the petition is not maintainable. He pointed out that Writ Petition No. 3254 was filed by 15 employees, but respondents Nos. 11 to 15 (before the High Court) have not been made parties in the instant petition. As such, the impugned judgment, cannot be set aside without impleading them in the proceedings.

4. The learned counsel for the DAM, Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Mughal, acknowledged that the respondents are indeed entitled to their pensionary benefits. He further explained that the DAM had approached PPH Department for provisions of funds, but the funds have not been provided due to which pension could not be paid.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Admittedly, the respondents were permanent employees of DAM and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The payment of pension is not only a legal obligation but also a fundamental right of retired employees, ensuring their financial security and dignity in their post-service years. The delay or denial of pensionary benefits creates significant hardship, especially for those who have spent the prime years of their lives serving in public offices. The timely disbursement of pension is critical in upholding the trust that employees place in the government or relevant authorities, assuring them that their contributions will be acknowledged and rewarded even after their retirement. Furthermore, pension is a vital component of the social contract between the state and its citizens, fostering a sense of security for employees who have served the public and contributed to the welfare of society. Therefore, the prompt and regular payment of pension is not merely a financial transaction but a moral and social responsibility that must be fulfilled without delay or excuse. This Court in the case reported as Justice (R) Abdul Rashid Sulehria v. AJ&K Government and others [2015 SCR 1396] has held that all the concerned authorities are under legal obligation to sanction the pension a month before the date of retirement. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "

16. As the appellant who is a retired Judge of the High Court and his pension case has not been finalized, he is waiting for fixation of pension since last more than a year's period which is against the spirit of law and concept of good governance. Whereas, according to the statutory provisions all the concerned authorities are under the legal obligation to sanction the pension a month before the date of retirement. In this regard, it will be suffice to refer here rules 5.1 and 5.2 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Pension) Rules, 1971, which reads as follows:- "5.1 All authorities dealing with applications for pensions under these rules should bear in mind that delay in the payment of pensions involves peculiar hardship. It is essential to ensure, therefore, that a Government servant begins to receive his pension on the date on which it becomes due. 5.2 The responsibility for initiation and completion of pension papers is that of the Head of Department/Attached Department concerned in the case of gazzetted officers, and of the Head of Officer concerned in the case of non-gazzetted Government servants. The action should be initiated one year before a Government servant is due to retire, so that pension may be sanctioned a month before the date of his retirement. For this purpose, every Government servant should be asked to submit his pension application in Form 3 (Pen) 6 months in advance of the date of his retirement. Provided that in case in which the date of retirement cannot be foreseen 6, months in the advance, the Government servant, may be asked to submit his pension application immediately after the date of his retirement is known".

17. Regrettably, this statutory provision has been ignored which resulted into creating hardships and anomalous situations and agony for the retiring person. Therefore, for the ends of justice keeping in view the peculiar facts of this case all the concerned are directed to take immediate actions in this regard and finalize the pension matter of the appellant within one month's time from the announcement of this Judgment."

6. The DAM, which is the creation of Act, 1989, is an autonomous body/special institution of PPH under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rules of Business (Revised), 1985. Section 16 of the Act, 1989 empowers the DAM to employ such officers, servants, experts or consultants as it may consider, necessary. A proviso to this section speaks-that salaried officers and servants of BPS-16 and above shall not be appointed except with the previous sanction of the Government. Section 21 of Act, 1989 speaks that:- "

21. Development Authority Muzaffarabad Fund.- (1) There shall be formed a fund to be known as the 'Development Authority Muzaffarabad Fund' which shall vest in the Authority and shall be utilized by the Authority to meet charges in connection with its functions under this Act including the payment of salaries and other remunerations to the Chairman, members, officers, servants, experts, and consultants of the Authority. (2) The Authority Fund shall consist of;- (a) annual Development grants and other grants made by the Government from time to time for the execution of its schemes and conduct of its business: (b) loans obtained from the Government; (c) sale proceeds of movable and immovable property and receipts for services rendered; (d) loans raised by the Authority with the special or general sanction of the Government; (e) bank loans and borrowing form financial Institutions; and (f) all other slims receivable by the authority." As per the section (supra) there shall be a fund known as the DAM Fund. This Fund is to be utilized for the payment of salaries and other remunerations to the employees. The Fund consists of development grants and other grants made by the Government from time to time for execution of its schemes and conduct of its business. The learned counsel for the petitioners has heavily relied upon section 12 of the DAM Act, 1989, however, a perusal of said section reveals that this section does not deal with payment of pension rather it deals with the powers of the DAM and bears no relevance with the matter in hand. Although DAM is an autonomous body, its autonomy is not absolute. It operates under the administrative control and supervision of the Physical Planning and Housing Department. Therefore, I am of the view that the decision of the High Court to direct for the payment of pensionary benefits is just and appropriate. The High Court did not err in recognizing the government's failure to provide the necessary funds, and its direction for the relevant authorities to arrange for the release of funds is both fair and in accordance with law.

7. Furthermore, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents also has a force. A perusal of the record shows that Writ Petition No. 3254 was originally filed by 10 employees. Subsequently, five more retired employees of DAM filed an application to be arrayed in the line of petitioners in the writ petition. The application was accepted and they were entered in the line of petitioners but despite this petitioners Nos. 11 to 15 (before the High Court) have not been made parties in the present petition. In absence of these parties the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be interfered with. As no legal question of public importance is involved, hence, leave is refused. MQ/33/SC(AJ&K) Petition dismissed.