The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that an employee who serves for a prolonged period on a contract basis against a permanent post cannot be denied pension rights merely because his or her services were regularized at a later stage, observing that pension is not a charity or a government favour but a recognized right that provides financial security in old age.
According to a detailed judgment, a two-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali dismissed an appeal filed by the federal government and upheld a decision of the Federal Service Tribunal directing that the contract service of Woman Programme Officer (WPO) Seema Tauseef be counted towards pension and other financial benefits.
The judgment stated that Seema Tauseef had been serving in a development-funded project since 1986. On July 1, 1997, she was appointed on a contract basis against a post of a permanent nature. Her services were regularized on December 15, 2011, and she retired on December 25, 2020. However, the department did not count her service prior to 2011 for pension purposes. The federal government argued that under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, contract employees do not fall within the definition of civil servants and are therefore not entitled to pension benefits. It further contended that regularization amounts to a fresh appointment and cannot be applied retrospectively.
The Supreme Court observed that a review of the relevant Civil Service Regulations (CSR) showed that more than five years of continuous temporary or non-permanent service could be counted towards pension. The Court held that Seema Tauseef had rendered uninterrupted service on a contract basis for 24 years against the same post and was therefore entitled to pension benefits under CSR 371-A.
The Court noted that while the department had benefited from the employee’s services for 24 years, it denied her pension benefits upon retirement, describing such treatment as unfair. The judgment further stated that throughout her service, no allegation of incompetence, negligence or misconduct had been levelled against her and that she had performed her duties in accordance with the department’s expectations.
The Court also observed that contract employment is intended to meet temporary requirements, project-based needs or emergencies, and not to keep employees on contract indefinitely against permanent positions. It held that continuing contract employment for an extended period for work of a permanent nature amounted to exploitation and was contrary to the spirit of Article 3 of the Constitution. The judgment noted that some institutions resort to long-term contract employment to avoid pension liabilities and other service benefits, leaving employees without adequate financial security upon retirement despite decades of service.