Pension benefits

Grievance of petitioner was that duration of his service as daily wager was not considered for the purposes of pension benefits

Validity

Petitioner was first appointed in year, 2000 on daily wages basis and he continuously serviced as such for nine years and then his daily wages employment was converted into regular service with effect from 1-6-2009

Previous service of petitioner was countable according to Arts. 358 & 371-A of Civil Service Regulations (C.S.R.), to his regular service for the purpose of pensionary and other fringe benefits

High Court directed the authorities to include daily wages employment of petitioner as his substantive service in regular PG-1 for the purpose of pension and other allied pensionary benefits

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner claimed that his service as ad hoc judge of Supreme Court was not included in total service for computing his pensionary benefits

Validity

Petitioner who rendered service as ad hoc judge of Supreme Court had been discharging functions and duties in service of Pakistan

Such service qualified under the terms of paragraph 15 of High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997, for accretion of petitioner's pensionary benefits

One year's service, under paragraph 15 of High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997, could be translated to an accretion in pension of petitioner to the extent of 2% of his salary as determined by the President

Eligibility to claim accretion occurred upon completion of such period of service in Pakistan by petitioner on the date till when he served as ad hoc judge of Supreme Court and pension amount payable to petitioner must have included such accretion

High Court declared order passed by authorities, refusing to include period of service in Supreme Court, as illegal

High Court directed Federal Government to pay petitioner pension including therein accretion of 2% of his determined salary

Petition was allowed in circumstances.