Decision of Supreme Court of Pakistan Regarding the Inclusion of 5 Adhoc Allowances in Pension Setting Aside the Decision of FST

Last Updated on October 31, 2021 by ShumailaKamalBHP

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has given its decision on 7th August 2013 in connection with the Inclusion of Adhoc Allowances Reckonable towards Pension. But it is sad news for the pensioners that the SCP has given its decision against the willing of the pensioners. SCP has set aside the decision of FST dated 22nd February 2012. Some salient points about this case are as under:

Federation of Pakistan has challenged common judgment dated 22-02-2012 of the learned Federal Service Tribunal (FST), whereby appeals of the respondents were allowed. The respondents’ claim for payment of pension by addition of Special Additional Allowance dated 23-07-1999, Special Relief Allowance dated 30-06-2003, Adhoc Relief Allowance dated 01-07-2004, Dearness Allowance dated 24-06-2006 and Additional Adhoc Relief Allowance  dated 21-07-2009 was allowed and the appellants was directed to recalculate the pension of the respondents by including these allowances. Leave to appeal was granted on 26-06-2012, inter alia, to consider as to whether these allowances are liable to be included in the pensionable emoluments and reckonable towards calculation of pension under law. In the decided it is stated that:

We note that the Tribunal has not dealt-with in its impugned judgment the relevant law which was actually applicable to the case in hand but rather has allowed itself to be swayed by principles or decisions which were either not applicable or were not the correct annunciation of law and in doing so came to the wrong conclusion by allowing the appeals of the respondents. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the matter in hand and the applicable law, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and suffers from legal infirmity and perversity and therefore, is not sustainable. These appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of the FST is, therefore, set aside. There shall however be no order as to costs. (A Post delivered by Mr. Muhammad Razzaq)


Pension Inclusion Allowances

Pension Allowances Inclusion

Allowances Pension



Download the Full Copy of the Deciiosn About Adhoc Allowance Recknoable in Pension



Share this post

37 thoughts on “Decision of Supreme Court of Pakistan Regarding the Inclusion of 5 Adhoc Allowances in Pension Setting Aside the Decision of FST

  1. regards
    sir i retired zeladar irrigation dept bps march bught 2017 two r three adhoc relief allowence include in basic.i also retired in 2017.but before bughat.but case passed in 2018.but remember retire in march 2017,have i right to include adhoc relief allowance in my basic or pension afrer retirement in same year.??

  2. muhammad durez malik · Edit

    is there any appeal exist after scp decision in supreme court of Pakistan .any friend who now about this pl.msg or call thanks 03455552515

  3. Congrates to Mr. Justice (R) Sheikh Ahmad Farooq appointed as Chairman Federal Service Tribunal (FST) and I hope that Adhoc Relief allowances of Jul 1999, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2009 in emoluments recoknodable toward pension. may be re consider by the Chairman in favour of employee who already retired prior fixation of 1.7.2011 are badly effected and facing great financial difficulities due to drawing less pension

  4. Amir zarif hussain · Edit

    Dear what is latest on appeal of pensioners for inclusion of 5 adhoc relief allowances after suprecourt of pak decicision.
    please informme on my email address.
    Amir zarif hussain

  5. I highly appreciate the valuable efforts of a few gentlemen fighting for the fate of poor pensioners who retired before the pay scales of 2011. I pray for their success and also request my other friends to pray for the success of a few gentlemen. thanks

      1. muhammad ibrahim ex S,A a/c no 30065 · Edit

        madam aslam mujhe smjh nhn ate ye case itna clear case hone k bawajood faisla against a gia kia hamara wakil judge sahiban ko kail nhn kr saka ya wakil gia h nhn date pe?

          1. muhammad ibrahim ex S,A a/c no 30065 · Edit

            madam shumaila khan aslam alaikum. me janna chahta hn k adhoc wala case abhe tak h ya bilkul khatam ho gia ,dobara appeal me gae thee ya nhn, mtlb ab latest kia position h is case k.

  6. AOA, Dear Shomaila Kamal and M, Razaq , have you any latest update on review petition in supreme court in this 05 adhoc relief case.Kindly speak ,thanks.

      1. AOA
        Would somebody please let me know whether review of petition by some pensioners have been admitted for hearing in the supreme court? And if so, what is the result of the particular hearing?

        Best Regards
        Jaweria Tariq

  7. I pray that May Allah Almighty success those who filed the review petition in the Supreme Court of Pakistan.I appreciated their courage and efforts for poor and handicapped pensioners.Please update regarding more information on this case. Yeh sadqa-e-jahria hai. Thanks

  8. AOA.
    In this case one supporting argument may be as under:-

    Although Govt while granting ad-hoc allowances/relief etc (during 1999 to 2009), stated that the same are not part of pay and will not be calculated for pension purpose but later on at the time of revision of Pay Scale 2011, the Govt vide para 5 of Fin Div OM No.F.1(5)Imp/2011-410 dated 04.07.2011 sated that these hoc relief granted upto 01.07.2009 shall stand discontinued wef 01.07.2011 having been merged in the Basic Pay Scales, 2008 so as to introduce Basic Pay Scales 2011. Thus these allowances automatically became part of pay and reckon able in pension for the civil servants in service at that time. In this case Govt itself deviated from its own previous clarification and only deprived the pensioners retired after 01.07.2011 from this benefit which is tentamounts to malafied intention and discrimination with them. More over the case is similar to a previous decided case of 7% compensatory allowance, as the benefits of this allowance was also granted to those who were already retired.

    In Pakistan, the retired Honourable Judges of superior courts are getting pension on the principle of one rank one pension. Similarly efforts may also be made that the retired civil servants and military personnel may be given one rank one pension, in this way the miseries of old pensioner will be reduced in addition to recognizing the valuable services rendered to the state of Pakistan by the old civil/military pensioners.

    I appreciate the valuable efforts from the owner of this website for creating awareness among serving and retired personnel in cases of their common interest.

      1. AA am a retired dental surgeon.develop parkinson,, was the reason.and many ill will.i read the above cited decision.i respect, the honorable-court but it is against the natural justice as am retired oct 2012′ the ad hoc allowance should have been include to wards calculating i was reciving
        these allowances in my pay.although the decision is honored but still i hold my self to the fst decision .
        may allaha find the soft way for the pensioners.cause our govt are living like kings style .they do not care to the-people.

    1. Dear Mr N.H. Khan

      Thanks for your good remarks and valuable suggestions.Any law making authority makes the law for its own benefits.Pl go through the decision of SCP and you will see that there were three senior Advocates arguing the case of pensioners.Can u imagine any documents /argument was left during proceeding of case.The supporting argument put forwards by your good self was the basis of filing the case in FST and then in apex court.The examples of Rs 100,Rs 300,7% COLA and secretariat allowance(all allowed by SCP to be included in pension). were also submitted before the court,the matter of discrimination ,the article 25 of Constitution of Pakistan but to no avail.
      Government came up with the objection that these adhocs are not covered by CSR 486 which define the categories of payments to be included for calculation of pension. secondly if this case is accepted govt will have to bear a burden of 53 billions annually.
      This was very powerful argument.The learned Court decided the case with the remarks inter alia that the serving employees and pensioners are different classes.Any benefit given to serving employee can be claimed by pensioners.A lots of important legal and factual question have escaped notice of Honourable court, the same have been submitted in review petition.

  9. nclusion of adhoc relief allowances Jul 99 to Jul 2011
    Supreme court used word ” to consideration opinion”not judgement
    Some cases like 300/- as adhoc and Cost of living allowance.In
    Both cases from previous date and arrears were given on what
    ground. So thisisopinion therefore thoses pensioners already
    working on thiscase may be re-appeal fordecision notopinion

    Isany pensioner appealon this subject. Please advise
    Amir Zarif Hussain

    1. Dear Amir Zarif Hussain

      Regards, the” considered opinion” is a strong word in legal term.”is not sustainable” further strengthen the language.The language of decision is adequately strong and clear,can not be termed as” opinion”.My humble submissions in my previous remarks were that the case was decided on the fact that CSR 486 which explain the pay etc which come under the definition of emolument reckon able towards calculation of pension. Adhoc relief,cost of living allowance and adhoc allowance, dearness allowance are not covered in CSR 486.You may recall the Ministry of Finance Letter allowing increase in pension every year right from 1997 to 2013 contains a condition”it will not be treated as part of emoluments for the purpose of calculation of pension/gratuity and recovery of house rent”.The letter allowing Rs 100,Rs 300 and 7%(which were ordered by the apex court to be included in the pension) also carried the same condition. on this very plea a number of pensioners went to the highest court.Now a couple of gentlemen have filed the review petition in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Pl Pray for their success(yours also) and appreciate their courage for paying a huge fees in FST and twice in SCP. Pl be informed that I am not one of them

      1. May Allah success those gentlemen who filed the review petition in the Supreme Court of Pakistan.I really appreciate them for their courage and efforts for poor pensioners if they do so.Kindly update who have more informations on this case.Thanks

  10. ” ONE RANK ONE PENSION” is a great solution to solve disparities in pension cases. All the employees (serving/retired) should made collective efforts for recommendation and implementation of “ONE RANK ONE PENSION” by the govt. of Pakistan.

  11. A issue had been arisen with regard to 7% cost of living allowance.This allowance was included in the pay of serving employees w.e.f 01-12-2001.It was to be reckoned towards pension of employees retiring on or after the said date 01-12-2001.Its benefits were denied to employees receiving the allowance but retiring before 01-12-2001.The FST in its judgment dated 02-12-2010 passed in appeal No.486(L)CS/2006 allowed the benefits of pension to all the pensioners.It was up held by the apex court vide order dated 01-04-2011 and Finance Division issued order in connection of it on 16-05-2011 and made it admissible for all those employees who were in receipt of said allowance at the time of their retirement and who had not availed the benefit of revised basic pay scale 2001.If the pensioners who retired between 1995-2001 have been given relief irrespective of the year of their retirement then why not in this case who retired between 1999-2011.Both cases are same but decisions are opposite to each others , why ?

    1. Federal service tribunal ka nya chairman mokarar ho gya hay meri sub pensionrs say appeal hay k wo inclusion of 5 Adhoc relief ka case nay chairman k notice main lay aain to behtary ke omeed ho saktee hay.

      1. I think that effected pensioners (2001-2011) should jointly utilized there efforts toward solution of the case in their favour. How it possible that
        pensioners of a specific period (2001-2011) be deprived of this pensionery, benefit and these adhoc have been included as part of pension wef 2011. Why,


Post Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.