29/04/2026
Counting of contract service for pension :
Contract period ordered to be counted for pension--Contract employment--Long continuous service--Treated as substantive Regularization--Not fresh appointment in peculiar facts-- Pension--Vested right--Not bounty--It was gleaned from plain reading of aforesaid Civil Regulations that CSR-352 restricted claim of pension by appointees of limited time only; or for specified duty; or when a person was employed temporarily on monthly wages or when a person's whole time was not retained for public service but paid for work done--It was not ruminated that CSR-352 applied there to reject respondent's claim of pension--Long span of contractual engagement could neither be construed as for limited period or temporarily nor could it be based on daily wages arrangement--Glimpse of CSR-361 dictated that service did not qualify pension unless service was under Government; employment had to be substantive and permanent; service had to be paid by government--Yet again, it did not apply in present controversy as from long standing contractual engagement it depicted that post was substantive and permanent--Similarly, CSR-365 had no application in set of circumstances of instant case--Taking into account nitty-gritties of CSR-368, it divulged that except provided in Regulations, services did not qualify unless officer held substantive office on permanent establishment--It made an announcement that notwithstanding anything contained in articles 355 (b), 361, 368, 370 and 371, Government servants borne on temporary establishments who had rendered more than 5 years continuous temporary service would count such service for purpose of pension or gratuity excluding broken periods of temporary service; continuous, temporary, and officiating service of less than 5 years immediately followed by confirmation would also count for gratuity or pension, as case might be--It was held without hesitation that long period of contractual service rendered by respondent No.1 made her entitled for benefit of CSR-371A for purposes of awarding pension to her--Purpose of pension was to provide old-age security and an economic refuge as vested constitutional right; neither it was bounty, charity, or act of grace by employer nor alms or donation--It was held that even such right could not be snuffed due to delayed application merely for reason that continuing right or cause of action could not be stifled under rigors or obstinacies of law of limitation or doctrine of laches--Theme of contractual employment was meant to an engagement for some temporary work, time bound projects or due to some contingency/exigency or time bound work/assignment but absolutely not for an unlimited period against a permanent post.
C.P.L.A. No. 1380 of 2025
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN versus SEEMA TAUSEEF and others--
(PLJ 2026 SC 253)
(As received)
Advocate Ch. Abdur Rahman Nasir Burm-Online Legal Services-Pakistan , Supreme Court of Pakistan 🇵🇰 Cellphone No. +923335123431
Website : proficientlawyers.pk
