IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED 
MR. JUSTICE SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1203 OF 2014 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 18.10.2012 
passed by the Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan 
Bench in Writ Petition No. 841/2010) 
 
WAPDA through its Chairman and another 
… Appellants 
VERSUS 
Mst. Parizada 
… Respondent 
 
For the Appellants: 
Mian Shafaqat Jan, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Respondent: 
Mr. Arshad Zaman Kayani, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
 
 
Date of Hearing:  
11.07.2018 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.- Naseeb Khan, the deceased 
husband of the respondent was appointed by the petitioner as 
office Chowkidar on 02.10.1982. He died during service on 
05.06.1992 after putting in 9 years and 8 months of service. After 
his death, his widow was paid group life insurance and other 
financial benefits but was denied pension. The respondent-widow 
then claimed that her husband being Chowkidar and died after 
serving for a period of about 10 years, she is entitled to get pension 
under Wapda Pension Rules. Her claim for pension was denied by 
the department on the ground that her deceased husband was 
only a work charge employee. The respondent then wrote a letter to 
the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Peshawar High Court, which was 
treated as Writ Petition. The learned High Court after taking into 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1203 OF 2014 
2
consideration the fact that respondent’s husband was working as 
office Chowkidar and during his service was given annual 
increments, as were permissible to the regular employees and 
upon his death, respondent-widow was also given all other 
financial benefits except the pension, vide impugned judgment 
held that respondent-widow is entitled to pensionary benefits. 
Aggrieved by such decision, petitioner department filed Civil 
Petition No. 346/2013 wherein leave was granted to consider 
whether as per the claim of the petitioner, the late husband of the 
respondent was a work charge employee.  
 
2. 
 
After examining the record, we are of the view that 
respondent’s deceased husband was appointed as Chowkidar, 
which is a permanent post and that is the reason that he had been 
given annual increments and upon his death, her wife was given 
all financial benefits including group life insurance etc but was 
denied pension. From the nature of job and the period 
respondent’s husband had served, it cannot be said that he was a 
work charge employee. There was every likelihood that he would 
have continued to serve had he lived longer. Learned counsel for 
the petitioners in the alternative argued that even otherwise, the 
respondent’s husband has not put in the minimum ten years 
service in terms of pension table contained in Rule 6 of the 
Pakistan Wapda Pension Rules, therefore, the claim of pension 
even on the basis of a permanent employee was not permissible in 
law. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondent referred to 
Volume-II of Wapda Compendium of important directives/office 
orders issued by the authority. He specifically pointed out 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1203 OF 2014 
3
paragraph 2(c)(5) of Serial Number 2 under the heading ‘Payment 
of Dues’ of Wapda, which clearly provides that “pension as well as 
Commutation (25%) is to be paid, if service is 9-1/2 years or more.” 
In the present case, the respondent’s husband had admittedly put 
in 9 years and 8 months service. Hence, he being not a work 
charge employee and has been working on a permanent post until 
his death, her widow was entitled to receive pension. We, therefore, 
find no justification to interfere in the impugned judgment. This 
appeal having no merit is accordingly dismissed.  
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
11th of July, 2018 
Not Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
 
