Zubair Qureshi
President Dr Arif Alvi has upheld the order of the Wafaqi Mohtasib directing the International Islamic University (IIU) Islamabad to pay pension share to its former professor who served the university for over 14 years. In his order the president held that pension was a hard-earned right accrued to an employee by dint of his/her long, continuous and faithful services and deprivation or delay in the grant of this right could not be permitted, except in accordance with the law.
As per details, Prof Dr Ali Asghar Chishti (the complainant) had served at the IIU from June 1985 to August 1999 as a faculty member. Later, he joined Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU) after applying through the proper channel. After his retirement from AIOU in 2020, he applied to the IIU for transfer of pension share but the same was not done despite the issuance of a letter of liability in his favour. Subsequently, he approached the Wafaqi Mohtasib (WM) for relief. After hearing, the WM passed the order in his favour as during the hearing, the IIU admitted his claim and assured him to redress his grievance. Later, IIU chose to file a representation with the president against the orders of WM.
However the president upheld the order of the Mohtasib directing IIUI to transfer the pension share of the complainant as per his request and based his order on a decision of the Supreme Court. He stated that it was an admitted fact that pension was not a bounty but rather an employee earned it by dint of his long, continuous and faithful service. He added that the hard-earned right, that accrued to an employee, was in the nature of “property”, and constituted a fundamental right to livelihood under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan. He stressed that the deprivation, even a part of this amount, could not be permitted, except in accordance with the law.
The president also cited another judgment of the Supreme Court, dated Feb 21, 2013, wherein Government Departments, Agencies and Officers had been directed not to cause unnecessary hurdles or delay in finalizing the payment of pension/retirement benefits in future. In its judgment, the apex court had stated that any violation of these directions would amount to criminal negligence and dereliction of duty, and if any delay in the finalization of pension benefits cases of government servants, widows or orphan children was brought to the notice of the court, the head of the concerned department would also be held liable for the contempt of the court and would be dealt with strictly in accordance with law.
