The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Saturday rejected a plea by the Balochistan government to grant lifetime facilities to retired chief secretaries and their widows.
Justice Aamer Farooq, who headed the FCC two-judge bench, observed that the Balochistan government notification was over and above the pensionary benefits granted to chief secretaries.
The judgment explained that the Rules of Business do not empower the provincial government to issue such directions by way of notification, especially when there was no legal backing.
The FCC ruling came on an appeal filed by Balochistan’s chief secretary against the May 29, 2023, Balochistan High Court (BHC) judgment, which had also struck down Notification No. 13-25(5)/2019/SO-1(S&GAD) extending lifetime facilities to retired chief secretaries and their widows.
The controversy arose from a notification challenged before the BHC by Bayazid Khan Kharooti, which the court accepted. The high court held that such benefits could not be granted without legal backing in law, rules or regulations, adding that entitlements for retired civil servants must be clearly provided in legislation or policy and cannot be created through a mere executive notification.
While deciding the case, Justice Farooq observed that the high court’s reasoning did not suffer from any legal or jurisdictional defect warranting FCC interference; consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
“Any action, of whatever nature, must be firmly rooted in law and must be traceable to a legal source from which it derives its authority,” observed Justice Farooq adding this principle constitutes the fundamental affirmation of the constitutionality of our system of governance.
Justice Farooq observed that a careful review of the Balochistan Rules of Business, 2012, does not support the extension of perks and privileges to the chief secretary. On the contrary, Rule 3(4) delineates the structure and composition of the government of Balochistan by distributing its business among various departments, as specified in Schedule-I (Section B).
“The rule makes it clear that each department is to exercise only those functions that are expressly assigned to it, the judgment said.
In this context, Schedule-I (Section B) specifically entrusts the Finance Department with the authority to frame civil service rules relating to pension, leave, pay revision, and their interpretation for all government servants.”
The justice further observed that this allocation indicates that any matters concerning pensionary benefits, including those of the chief secretary, fall within the exclusive domain of the finance department, rather than the chief secretary himself or even the chief minister.
The court also noted that the notification under challenge was issued by the Services and General Administration Department, with the approval of the chief minister as the competent authority.
“Such authority is neither contemplated nor supported by the Rules of Business, therefore the action appears to have been taken without proper legal basis,” the judgment observed.
“Consequently, the notification, having been issued without the requisite competence, was appropriately struck down by the high court,” Justice Farooq observed.
Likewise, the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974, provides that “on retirement from service, a civil servant shall be entitled to receive such pension, or gratuity, as may be prescribed.”
“Thus this provision of the act makes civil servants of the Balochistan government, which includes the chief secretary as well, to be subject to such pension or gratuity as may be prescribed. So, the pension of a civil servant is structured and is not beyond the bounds of the law,” the judgment emphasised.
“One is only entitled to such a sum that is permissible by the law. Now, the pension so prescribed is also governed under Balochistan Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1989, which provides for the rules relating to Civil Servants and their pension. The perks and privileges granted to the chief secretary find no mention in the rules either and thus, has no basis in law,” the judgment said further.