ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday affirmed that pension is a vested constitutional right and not a bounty or something given out of generosity by the employer. The employee earns these benefits through long, continuous, faithful and unblemished service, observed Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui in a six-page judgement that upheld the right of a former civil servant to receive pension benefits despite the fact that he had applied for pension 13 years after his resignation. Justice Siddiqui was a member of a three-judge SC bench headed by Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan, which also comprised Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb. The bench had taken up an appeal filed by Muhammad Usman against the July 3, 2024 rejection of his plea by the Federal Service Tribunal (FST). Sets aside ruling of service tribunal on plea by ex-auditor The appellant was a former senior auditor (BS-11) in the office of the Military Accountant General, Rawalpindi. He was held disentitled to pension benefits on the grounds that he had tendered resignation from public service and applied belatedly for the release of pensionary benefits, notwithstanding the fact that the requisite length of service — i.e. 20 years — had already been completed by the employee. Earlier, his department dismissed the application on the grounds that the qualifying length of service for pension benefits was 25 years. Likewise, his subsequent application for condonation of the shortfall period was also declined on Oct 27, 2020. The SC noted that since the resignation was tendered in September 2007, the petitioner, for the purposes of pension benefits, was required to have served for a period of 20 years, as the relevant clause (i) to sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, had been amended through Ordinance No XXXIV of 2001 on Aug 4, 2001, whereby the qualifying service was reduced from 25 to 20 years. During the hearing, Additional Attorney General (AAG) Rashideen Nawaz Qasoori did not object to the fact that, at the relevant time when the resignation was tendered, the petitioner had completed the requisite period of 20 years. However, the AAG opposed the grant of pension benefits to the petitioner on two counts: first, that the petitioner had belatedly applied for the pension claim; and second, that since he had tendered resignation on his own from public service, Regulation 418 of the Civil Service Regulations would disentitle him from such a claim. The petitioner had moved the department for the first time to claim pension benefits in the year 2020, i.e. after a lapse of 13 years from the date of tendering resignation, which was later accepted. This delay was considered sufficient by the relevant department to disentitle the petitioner from claiming pensionary benefits, the judgement noted. However, treating CSR as an independent provision to oust a civil servant from claiming pension benefits after successful completion of the requisite length of service was misconceived and legally untenable, the SC ruled. The apex court further held that both the FST and the concerned departmental authority had failed to understand the true spirit of Regulation 418 of the CSR, and that a belated application to claim pension benefits did not, by itself, constitute a ground for disentitlement. While concluding, the SC set aside the FST order as unsustainable and converted the petition into an appeal, holding that the appellant was entitled to his pension benefits in accordance with law. Published in Dawn, January 17th, 2026