IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, CJ. 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar. 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Amir Hani Muslim. 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rahman. 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Khilji Arif Hussain. 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1072/2005. 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 
29.12.2003 passed by the Federal Service 
Tribunal, 
Islamabad, 
in 
Appeal 
No. 
6(P)/CS/2003) 
 
Chairman, Pakistan Railway, Government of Pakistan, 
Islamabad, etc.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant(s) 
 
Versus 
Shah Jehan Shah 
 
 
 
 
               Respondent(s) 
 
AND 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 686/2012. 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 
09.04.2012 passed by the KPK Service 
Tribunal, 
Peshawar, 
in 
Appeal 
No. 
1539/2009) 
 
Mst. Robina Shaheen  
 
 
 
 
          Appellant(s) 
 
Versus 
 
Director Education (E &SE), KPK, Peshawar, etc.              Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
(in C. A. 1072/2005):  
 
Hafiz S. A. Rehman, Sr. ASC 
 
(in C. A. 686/2012):  
 
Mr. Riaz Sherpao, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mir Adam Khan, AOR 
 
For the Respondent(s) 
(in C. A. 1072/2005):  
 
Mr. Abdur Rehman Siddiqui, ASC 
 
For Respondent No. 5 
(in C. A. 686/2012):  
 
Mr. Ijaz Anwar, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR 
 
On behalf of KPK: 
 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. AG 
 
Date of Hearing:  
 
14.03.2016 and 15.03.2016 
… 
 
Civil Appeals No.1072/2005 & 686/2012. 
 
-2 - 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J:- These appeals, by leave of the 
Court, involve a similar question of law, hence are being disposed of 
together. The key question involved herein is whether persons who have 
rendered more than five years’ service in a temporary establishment are 
entitled to the grant of pensionary benefits within the meaning of Article 
371-A of the Civil Service Regulations (CSR), and a re-visitation of the 
judgment of this Court reported as Mir Ahmad Khan v. Secretary to 
Government and others (1997 SCMR 1477). 
 
Civil Appeal No.1072/2005: 
2. 
 
This appeal entails the facts in that the respondent was 
appointed as an Assistant Executive Engineer (BPS-17) in Pakistan 
Locomotive Factory Risalpur, Pakistan Railways on 11.7.1989 on an ad 
hoc basis whereafter his employment was converted into a contract 
employment for two years with effect from 1.7.2000. Subsequently, due 
to the respondent’s failure to qualify for regularization before the 
Federal Public Service Commission, his services were terminated on 
4.9.2002. He filed a departmental appeal on 8.10.2002 for the grant of 
pensionary benefits which (departmental appeal) was dismissed vide order 
dated 9.1.2003. Subsequently, the respondent approached the learned 
Federal Service Tribunal (Tribunal) challenging not the termination of his 
services or the conversion of services from ad hoc to contractual, rather 
only non-payment of pensionary benefits. The learned Tribunal while 
relying upon the case of Mir Ahmad Khan (supra) accepted the 
respondent’s service appeal on 29.12.2003 through the impugned 
judgment holding as follows:- 
Civil Appeals No.1072/2005 & 686/2012. 
 
-3 - 
 
 
“7. 
In view of the clear provision available in 
Civil Service Regulations as CSR 371-A(i) and in the 
light of the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court, 
reproduced below, there is no ambiguity that the 
Appellants who have put in more than 10 years of 
uninterrupted service were entitled to pension as per 
rules……… 
 
9.  
In view of the rulings of Honourable 
Supreme Court, we accept the appeals, set aside the 
impugned orders and direct the respondents to give 
pension to the Appellants as admissible to them under 
CSR 371-A (i). They are also entitled to receive their 
other legal dues like General Provident (GP) Fund etc. 
However, Respondents would be at liberty to detect any 
valid/legal dues outstanding against them from amount 
payable to them.” 
 
Aggrieved of the above order, the appellants approached this Court, and 
leave was granted on 15.9.2005 in the following terms:- 
 
“………Since interpretation of a number of provisions 
of Civil Service Regulations as to entitlement to pension 
of the government servants, which will have impact on 
a large number of cases, is involved leave is granted to 
consider whether temporary service rendered by the 
three respondents qualified for pension”?” 
 
Subsequently, this Court on 21.2.2012 was of the view that a larger 
bench should hear the matter for the following reason(s):- 
 
“………The learned counsel for the appellant states 
that admittedly respondent is not a Civil Servant and he 
Civil Appeals No.1072/2005 & 686/2012. 
 
-4 - 
 
cannot claim pensionary benefits thus the judgment in 
the case of Mir Ahmed Khan (ibid) needs to be revisited 
in that if such wide interpretation is given to 
Regulations 371-A all contractual and temporary 
employees working in the Government Department 
would become entitled to pensionary benefits on 
termination of their employment, without being 
regularly employed. Since Mir Ahmed Khan’s case was 
decided by three members’ Bench, the matter be placed 
for consideration of the Hon’ble Chief Justice for 
placing the case before a larger Bench.” 
 
3. 
 
The basic argument of the learned counsel for the appellants 
was that Article 371-A was an enabling, as opposed to charging 
provision, and that the use of the word “count” in Article 371-A of the 
CSR, as opposed to “eligible” or “qualify”, does not mean that 
government servants who have rendered more than five years’ 
continuous temporary service in a temporary establishment are entitled 
to the grant of pension, rather that such period of service would be only 
be counted/added for the purposes of calculating pension, which the 
government servant has to nevertheless qualify for by fulfilling the three 
conditions of qualification for pension as provided in Article 361 of the 
CSR. In support of his arguments, he made reference to various Articles 
of the CSR and Fundamental Rules (FR). Learned counsel attempted to 
buttress his submissions by drawing an analogy with the judgment 
reported as Federation of Pakistan and others v. Rais Khan (1993 
SCMR 609), in which it was held that the period of ad hoc service 
followed by regular service in the same scale shall be counted towards 
length of service prescribed for promotion or move-over in the next 
higher scale, thus in the same manner, the period of temporary service 
Civil Appeals No.1072/2005 & 686/2012. 
 
-5 - 
 
of more than five years would be counted towards pension if it was 
followed by regular service. 
4. 
 
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent 
argued that the word “count” can be used interchangeably with 
“qualify” or “eligible”, and in fact “count” is more often than not the 
precise word used for the purposes of pensionary benefits. Further, the 
appellants’ interpretation of Article 371-A of the CSR that the period of 
temporary service of more than five years would be counted towards 
pension if it was followed by regular service would only be true if the 
said article specifically provided “temporary followed by permanent 
service”, but this is not the case. Further, the words “except as 
otherwise provided” in Article 368 of the CSR gives sanction to the grant 
of pensionary benefits to temporary employees. In support of his 
arguments, 
learned 
counsel 
placed 
reliance 
upon 
two 
office 
memorandums issued by the Ministry of Finance at Serial No.5 and 6 of 
Chapter V of Section VI of the Compendium of Pension Rules and 
Orders. 
5. 
 
Heard. Before resolving the proposition at hand, we find it 
expedient to reproduce the relevant articles of the CSR which read as 
under:- 
 
“361. 
Except as otherwise provided in these 
Regulations, the service of an officer does not qualify 
for pension unless it conforms to the following three 
conditions:- 
First.- The service must be under Government. 
Second.- The employment must be substantive and 
permanent. 
Third.- The service must be paid by Government. 
Civil Appeals No.1072/2005 & 686/2012. 
 
-6 - 
 
These three conditions are fully explained in the 
following Section. 
 
368. 
Except 
otherwise 
provided 
in 
these 
Regulations services does not qualify unless the officer 
holds 
a 
substantive 
office 
on 
a 
permanent 
establishment.  
 
369. 
An establishment, the duties of which are not 
continuous, but are limited to certain fixed periods in 
each year, is not a temporary establishment. Service in 
such an establishment, including the period during 
which the establishment is not employed, qualifies; but 
the concession of counting as service the period during 
which the establishment is not employed does not apply 
to an officer who was not on actual duty when the 
establishment was discharged, after completion of its 
work, or to an officer who was not on actual duty on 
the first day on which the establishment was again re-
employed. 
 
370. 
An officer transferred from a temporary to a 
permanent appointment can count his service in the 
temporary 
office, 
it, 
though 
at 
first 
created 
experimentally or temporarily, it eventually becomes 
permanent. 
 
371. 
An officer without a substantive appointment 
officiating in an office which is vacant, or the 
permanent incumbent of which does not draw any part 
of the pay or count service, may, if he is confirmed 
without interruption in this service, count his 
officiating service.  
 
371-A. 
Notwithstanding 
anything 
contained 
in 
Articles 355(b), 361, 368, 370 and 371 of these 
Regulations, temporary and officiating service, in 
Civil Appeals No.1072/2005 & 686/2012. 
 
-7 - 
 
the case of Government servants who retired on or 
after the 1st January, 1949, or who joined service 
thereafter, shall count for pension according to 
the following rule:- 
(i) 
Government servants borne on temporary 
establishments who have rendered more 
than 5 years continuous temporary service 
shall count such service for the purpose of 
pension or gratuity excluding broken 
periods of temporary service, if any, 
rendered previously, and 
(ii) 
Continuous 
temporary 
and 
officiating 
service of less than five years immediately 
followed by confirmation shall also count 
for gratuity or pension, as the case may 
be.” 
(Emphasis supplied) 
 
We begin with the basics. The CSR pertains to salary, leave, pension 
and travelling allowance of those serving in the civil departments. 
Despite the nomenclature used, i.e. Civil Service Regulations, the 
application of the CSR is not restricted to “civil servants” as defined in 
the Civil Servants Act, 1973 (Act), but also applies to “government 
servants”. Interestingly, “government servants” has neither been 
specifically defined in the Act nor in the CSR. However, we are not 
treading those waters, rather leaving it for an appropriate case, as the 
applicability of the CSR to the respondent is not disputed in the instant 
matter. Although we would like to observe that whether or not a 
particular article of the CSR applies only to a civil servant or extends to 
the broader pool of government servants would ultimately depend on 
the particular wording of the article under consideration. The CSR 
Civil Appeals No.1072/2005 & 686/2012. 
 
-8 - 
 
classifies pension into four basic types:- compensation pension, invalid 
pension, superannuation pension and retiring pension. In order to be 
able to claim pensionary benefits, one must fulfill the three conditions 
of qualifying service for pension stipulated in Article 361 of the CSR:- (i) 
the service must be under the Government; (ii) the employment must be 
substantive and permanent; and (iii) the service must be paid by the 
Government. An interpretation of the provisions pertaining to the 
second condition is relevant to the matter at hand. Article 368 of the 
CSR provides that the officer must hold a substantive office on a 
permanent establishment. Articles 370 and 371 of the CSR in essence 
allow for temporary and officiating services respectively, to be counted 
towards an officer’s service if such service (temporary or officiating) 
becomes permanent. 
6. 
 
Article 371-A(i) allows for governments servants who have 
rendered temporary service for more than five years at a temporary 
establishmentto count such service for the purposes of their pension (or 
gratuity), but the temporary service must be continuous, and excludes 
broken periods of temporary service rendered previously. By way of 
example, Article 371-A(i) would attract to a government servant who 
rendered continuous temporary service at a temporary establishment 
for six years and was subsequently confirmed at the end of his 
temporary service, those six years would be counted towards his 
service for the purposes of pensionary benefits. The said article would 
also encompass the situation where a government servant rendered 
continuous temporary service at a temporary establishment for six 
years but was not confirmed at the end of his temporary service, rather 
two years after his temporary service ended he was taken back and 
Civil Appeals No.1072/2005 & 686/2012. 
 
-9 - 
 
confirmed, then again those six years would be counted towards his 
service for the purposes of pensionary benefits, excluding the broken 
period of two years (the interregnum). On the other hand, Article 371-A(ii) 
provides that government servants who have rendered temporary and 
officiating service for less than five years immediately followed by 
confirmation shall also count for gratuity or pension (as the case may be), 
which (service) must also be continuous. By way of illustration, where a 
government servant rendered continuous temporary or officiating 
service for three years and was subsequently immediately confirmed, 
those three years would be counted towards his service for the 
purposes of pension. However, due to the inclusion of the word 
“immediately” and the omission of the words “excluding broken periods 
of temporary service” in clause (ii) of the Article 371-A, in a situation 
where a government servant rendered continuous temporary or 
officiating service for three years but was not confirmed at the end of 
his temporary service, rather two years after his temporary service 
ended he was taken back and subsequently confirmed, then those three 
years would not be counted towards his pensionary benefits. However, 
it is important to note that Article 371-A presupposes that such a 
government servant, whether falling under clause (i) or (ii), is otherwise 
entitled to pension (or gratuity, as the case may be). In other words, Article 
371-A cannot be used as a tool to bypass the conditions for qualifying 
service of pensionary benefits, and such government servant has to 
fulfill the minimum number of years for grant of pension. This is due to 
the use of the word “count” as opposed to “qualify” or “eligible”, as 
rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. As per the 
settled rules of interpretation, when a word has not been defined in the 
Civil Appeals No.1072/2005 & 686/2012. 
 
-10 - 
 
statute, the ordinary dictionary meaning is to be looked at. Chambers 
21st Dictionary defines “count” as “to find the total amount of (items), by adding 
up item by item; to include”. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of 
Current English (7th Ed.) defines “count” as “to calculate the total number of 
people, things, etc. in a particular group; in include sb/sth when you calculate a total; 
to consider sb/sth in a particular way; to be considered in a particular way”. Thus in 
light of the above, service rendered for more than five years as 
contemplated by Article 371-A would only be added, included, or taken 
into account for the purposes of pensionary benefits, and not make 
such government servant qualify for pension per se. This interpretation 
is bolstered by logic, reason and common sense. If we were to accept 
the reasoning of the learned Service Tribunal in the impugned judgment 
and the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents, it would 
create a bizarre and anomalous situation, where a government servant 
who has rendered temporary service in a temporary establishment for, 
let us say, seven years, would be entitled to pensionary benefits, and on 
the other hand, a government servant rendering services as a regular 
employee for fifteen years would not (yet) have completed the requisite 
number of years to qualify for grant of pension. It is absurd, ludicrous 
and inconceivable that a government servant, who is in regular 
employment, would become entitled to pension after serving the 
minimum years of qualifying service as prescribed by the law, whereas 
while interpreting Article 371-A, a government servant who has served 
as a temporary employee could be given preference over a regular 
employee, and after a minimum service of only five years would 
automatically become entitled to pension. Holding so would be against 
the object and spirit of the concept of pension which has been 
Civil Appeals No.1072/2005 & 686/2012. 
 
-11 - 
 
discussed by this Court in Regarding pensionary benefits of the 
Judges of Superior Courts from the date of their respective 
retirements, irrespective of their length of service as Judges (PLD 
2013 SC 829) as follows:- 
 
“…pension is not the bounty from the State/employer to 
the servant/ employee, but it is fashioned on the 
premise and the resolution that the employee serves his 
employer in the days of his ability and capacity and 
during the former's debility, the latter compensates him 
for the services so rendered. Therefore, the right to 
pension has to be earned and for the accomplishment 
thereof, the condition of length of service is most 
relevant and purposive.” 
(Emphasis supplied) 
 
Thus, we are not inclined to interpret Article 371-A in such a way so as 
to render the provisions stipulating minimum years for grant of 
pensionary benefits superfluous and redundant. As far as the 
provisions of Article 371-A are concerned, which is a non-obstante 
clause to Articles 355(b), 361, 368, 370 and 371 stipulated therein, 
suffice it to say that such article by itself does not provide for the 
entitlement for the purposes of pension, rather, at the cost of 
repetition, it is restricted to the counting of the period of a minimum of 
five years which has been rendered by the temporary employee that 
once he is appointed on a permanent basis, such period shall be taken 
into account for the object of calculating his entitlement to pension 
with respect to the requisite minimum period under the law. Therefore 
we are not persuaded to hold the words “Notwithstanding anything contained 
in Articles 355(b), 361, 368, 370 and 371 of these Regulations…” in Article 371-A 
Civil Appeals No.1072/2005 & 686/2012. 
 
-12 - 
 
to allow those who do not fulfill the requisite conditions for qualifying 
for pension to bypass such conditions, so as to render the articles of the 
CSR providing for such conditions unnecessary and surplus. Therefore, 
we are of the candid view, that Article 371-A of the CSR would not ipso 
facto or simpliciter allow government servants rendering temporary 
service in a temporary establishment for more than five years to be 
entitled to grant of pension, rather such period would only be counted 
towards such government servants’ pension if otherwise entitled to 
pension. 
7. 
 
It is not disputed that the respondent rendered continuous 
temporary serviceand that his length of service was continuous and for 
more than five years. However, the question that needs to be answered 
is whether he was working in a “temporary establishment” or not. 
“Temporary establishment” has not been defined in the CSR, the 
Fundamental and Supplementary Rules issued by the Government of 
Pakistan, the ESTA Code or the Compendium of Pension Rules and 
Orders. In this context Article 369 of the CSR mentions temporary 
establishment but only explains what it is not and thus is not very 
helpful. Therefore as mentioned earlier in the opinion, as per the settled 
rules of interpretation, the dictionary meaning of the words has to be 
resorted to. The Concise Oxford Dictionary (6th Ed.) has defined 
“temporary” as “lasting, meant to last, only for a time”, and “establishment” as 
an “organized body of mean maintained for a purpose”. Chambers 21st Century 
Dictionary defines “temporary” as “lasting, acting or used, etc for a limited 
period of time only”, and “establishment” as “a public or government 
institution”. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (7th 
Ed.) defines “temporary” as “lasting or intended to last or be used only for a short 
Civil Appeals No.1072/2005 & 686/2012. 
 
-13 - 
 
time; not permanent” and “establishment” as “an organisation, a large 
institution…” In light of the above dictionary meanings, “temporary 
establishment” can be said to mean an organisation or institution 
which is not permanent, rather effective for a certain period only. 
Admittedly the respondent was serving in Pakistan Locomotive Factory 
Risalpur, Pakistan Railways, which does not in any way fall within the 
meaning and purview of “temporary establishment”. Thus the 
respondent could not reply upon Article 371-A of the CSR. Besides, if 
hypothetically speaking Pakistan Locomotive Factory Risalpur was a 
temporary establishment, even then the respondent would not be able 
to take the benefit of Article 371-A (supra) as he otherwise does not 
qualify for pensionary benefits having not been subsequently taken into 
permanent employment, which is sine qua non for the grant thereof.  
8. 
 
Adverting to the law laid down in the case of Mir Ahmad 
Khan (supra) wherein it was held:- 
 
“Admittedly the appellant put in more than ten years’ 
temporary service before his services were terminated 
he was, therefore, entitled to pensionary benefits under 
Regulation 371-A(i) of Civil Service Regulations.” 
 
In light of the discussion in paragraph No.6, the judgment delivered in 
Mir Ahmad Khan’s case (supra) is declared to be per incuriam. 
9. 
 
In view of the foregoing, we find that the respondent was not 
entitled to the grant of pensionary benefits in terms of Article 371-A of 
the CSR, and the learned Service Tribunal had erroneously allowed him 
pension by wrongly relying upon the case of Mir Ahmad Khan (supra) 
which is declared to be per incuriam. 
Civil Appeals No.1072/2005 & 686/2012. 
 
-14 - 
 
10.  
The above are the detailed reasons for our short order of 
even date whereby the appellants’ appeal was accepted and the 
impugned judgment was set aside, which reads as follows:- 
 
“We have heard the arguments of learned ASCs for the 
parties. For the reasons to be recorded later, this 
appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the 
Federal Service Tribunal dated 29.12.2003 is set aside 
and the service appeal preferred by the respondent is 
dismissed.” 
 
Civil Appeal No.686/2012: 
11.  
The brief facts of the instant appeal are that the appellant 
was a Professional Teaching Certification (PTC) Teacher in the 
Commissionerate for Afghan Refugees, Peshawar (Commissionerate), from 
28.2.1987 to 17.1.2005, i.e. approximately 18 years. During her 
employment at the Commissionerate, she applied for two months leave 
on 20.1.2004, after which she was appointed as a PTC Teacher in the 
Schools and Literacy Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 
(department) and she assumed charge of her post on 25.11.2004 and 
tendered her resignation with the Commissionerate on 10.1.2005. 
Thereafter she filed a departmental appeal to respondent No.1 claiming 
that her 18 years’ service with the Commissionerate be counted for the 
purposes of her pension, which (departmental appeal) was accepted vide 
order dated 24.6.2008. However, the said order stated that her 10 years’ 
service be counted towards calculation of her pension, as opposed to 18 
years, which the appellant was dissatisfied with thus she filed a 
corrigendum application for correction of the said mistake. However, in 
response, the department on 20.7.2009 informed the appellant that her 
Civil Appeals No.1072/2005 & 686/2012. 
 
-15 - 
 
prior service with the Commissionerate could not be counted towards 
her pension. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the learned 
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal which was dismissed vide the 
impugned judgment dated 9.4.2012 whereafter she approached this 
Court. Leave was granted on 5.7.2013 in the following terms:- 
 
“………Prima facie, it is difficult to understand that 
admittedly when the petitioner had served for a period 
of about 18 years in the Commissionerate and 
thereafter joined the Education Department and 
initially the Education Department had also accepted 
her claim allowing computing of her previous service 
for the purpose of pension then what prevailed with the 
department subsequently in disallowing continuity. In 
view of the judgment cited by the learned counsel in the 
case of Zafar Shah (2003 SCMR 686) in such like 
circumstances, continuity for the purpose of extending 
the benefit of pension is permissible. 
 
3.  
Inter alia, to examine this aspect of the case, 
leave to appeal is granted in this case………” 
 
Subsequently on 19.9.2013, it was decided that this case was to be 
heard along with Civil Appeal No.1072/2005 before the larger bench as 
they both involved similar questions of law.  
12.  
Learned counsel for the appellant primarily submitted that 
the time spent at the Commissionerate is to be counted towards her 
pension in terms of Article 371-A of the CSR.  
13.  
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 
stated that due to the special facts and circumstances prevalent at that 
time, the decision rendered in the case of Mir Ahmad Khan (supra) is 
Civil Appeals No.1072/2005 & 686/2012. 
 
-16 - 
 
good law, however in the instant matter, the appellant is not entitled to 
inclusion 
of 
the 
period 
she 
spent 
as 
an 
employee 
of 
the 
Commissionerate for the purposes of pensionary benefits for the reason 
that she was in fact a project employee of a non-governmental 
organisation called Basic Education for Afghan Refugees (BEFARe), and 
not an employee of the Federal Government, and that she had resigned 
from the Commissionerate on 10.1.2005 after which she joined the 
department.  
14.  
Learned Additional Advocate General, KPK adopted the 
arguments of Mr. Hafiz S. A. Rehman, learned counsel for the 
appellants in Civil Appeal No.1072/2005. 
15.  
Heard. The appellant’s main grievance is that the eighteen 
years she spent at the Commissionerate be counted towards her service 
at the department for the purposes of the grant of pensionary benefits 
as per Article 371-A of the CSR, suffice it to say that the 
Commissionerate for Afghan Refugees does not in any way fall within 
the meaning of “temporary establishment” as defined in Civil Appeal 
No.1072/2005 above to mean an organisation or institution which is 
not permanent, rather effective for a certain period only as described. 
Even otherwise, the appellant’s service with the department was 
temporary and on a contract basis, and there is nothing on the record 
which suggests that she was subsequently confirmed or made 
permanent within the department. Therefore keeping in view the 
interpretation of Article 371-A of the CSR explained above with regard 
to Civil Appeal No.1072/2005 in that the said article would not ipso 
facto allow government servants rendering temporary service in a 
temporary establishment for more than five years to be entitled to grant 
Civil Appeals No.1072/2005 & 686/2012. 
 
-17 - 
 
of pension, rather such period would only be counted towards such 
government servants’ pension if otherwise entitled to pension, we are 
of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to pensionary benefits 
as claimed by her.  
16.  
In light of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned 
judgment warranting interference by this Court, therefore this appeal is 
dismissed as being devoid of merit. 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
 
Judge  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge  
 
 
Judge 
 
Announced in open Court 
At Islamabad on 14-4-2016 
Approved for reporting 
Ghulam Raza/* 
