IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB  
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 585 OF 2018 
(On 
appeal 
against 
the 
judgment 
dated 
23.09.2016 passed by the High Court of Sindh, 
Karachi in C.P. No. D-2353/2014) 
 
Pakistan Airline Pilots Association and others 
… Appellants 
 
VERSUS 
 
Pakistan International Airline and another 
… Respondents 
 
For the Appellants: 
Barrister Umaima Anwar Khan, Advocate  
 
 
 
 
(With Court’ permission) 
 
For the Respondents: 
Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, ASC 
 
Date of Hearing:  
13.12.2018 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.- The appellant No. 1 is Pakistan 
Airlines Pilots Association and the remaining appellants are retired 
pilot officers who served Pakistan International Airline Corporation 
“PIAC”. They are aggrieved with the current method of calculation of 
pension. Their case is that the pension be calculated in accordance 
with the formula articulated in the Trust Deed known as the “PIA 
PALPA FENA Pension Fund”. The said trust was created on 
12.02.1980 for the benefit of its eligible pilots and flight engineers 
only. On 15.08.1981 a Martial Law Regulation No. 52 was passed 
which stated that “Any existing agreement entered into between the 
corporation and any employee of the corporation or any class, union, 
association or organization of such employee stood terminated and 
were held not to form basis for a fresh agreement on the resumption of 
activities of PIAC”. Thus the Trust stood rescinded. Thereafter new 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 585 OF 2018 
2
service rules were introduced by respondent No.1 which included a 
pension scheme on 07.09.1982 whereby the “PIAC, PALPA and FENA 
Pension Fund” was converted to “PIAC Cockpit Crew Pension Fund”, 
the same was later replaced by PIAC Pension Fund Rules. Then a 
supplemental trust deed was signed called the “PFF Rules” dated 
04.09.1988 by which a method of calculation of pension was provided 
under Rule 9. Later various Admin Orders were issued from time to 
time regulating pension, last of which being Admin Order No.8 of 
2004.  
 
2. 
 
To seek the calculation of pensionary benefits on the 
basis of Trust Deed dated 12.02.1980, which had ceased to exist way 
back in 1981, the appellants filed constitution petition in 2014 in the 
High Court of Sindh, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment 
on the ground that it was not maintainable as the relationship of 
parties is governed by the principle of “master and servant”. Hence, 
this appeal with the leave of this Court.  
 
3. 
 
Learned counsel on behalf of the appellants argued that 
the Trust Deed of 1980 sets out the proper calculation method of 
pension and such formula cannot be altered by respondent No. 1 as 
the trust had specifically established parameters regarding the 
trustees autonomy and dispenses PIAC from its interest in the trust 
as they have no authority under the deed except for the fact that they 
have to make contributions to the fund; that the trust is a separate 
entity and through Martial Law Regulation, it cannot be terminated; 
that the Admin Order No. 34/2003 which froze the salary for the 
purposes of calculating pension was passed without notice which has 
caused detriment to the Cockpit Crew who retired after 01.01.2003.  
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 585 OF 2018 
3
 
4. 
 
Learned counsel of the respondents argued that the 
Martial Law Regulation No. 52 when passed in 1981 had the effect of 
rescinding the Trust Deed created in 1980 hence it had become 
defunct and thus unenforceable; that the pension of the Cockpit 
Crew is now being governed by the Admin Order No. 08 of 2004 to 
which the appellants have already acquiesced and now belatedly are 
raising a controversy which has no merits and even otherwise its 
determination is beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction.  
 
5. 
 
We have heard the counsel for the parties. After MLR-52 
rescinded the Trust Deed of 1980 in 1981, pension benefits were 
being calculated first under pension scheme of 1982 then under PFF 
Rules of 1988 which were followed by Admin Order 34 of 2003 and 
finally under Admin Order No. 08 of 2004. The appellants who retired 
on 2008, 2009 and 2014 are now seeking calculation of retirement 
benefits on the basis of Trust Deed of 1980 that as stated earlier 
stood rescinded in 1981. In Admin Order No. 34/2003 it is no doubt 
stated that pension, commutation and gratuity shall be calculated on 
the basis of the salary frozen on 31.12.2002 without taking into 
consideration future annual increments thereby resulting in the 
salary component to become stagnant as its effect was that no matter 
how much the salary increased after 31.12.2002 the pension was to 
be calculated on the salary drawn on 31.12.2002 but the anomaly so 
created was reversed by the respondent No.1 through Circular No. 
21/2003 issued on 31.07.2003 which provided that future revision in 
pension shall be linked with last drawn salary. So the grievance that 
pension was not being calculated on last drawn salary also stood 
redressed in 2003. Thus it is clear that the appellants/pilots shall be 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 585 OF 2018 
4
entitled to the pension on the basis of the last drawn salary which 
they were getting at the time of their retirement. It is only in 2014 
that the pensioners are seeking calculation of pensionary benefits on 
the basis of the Trust Deed of 1980 that stood revoked way back in 
1981 under MLR-52 and replaced by other pension schemes hence 
the constitution petition also suffered from laches.  
 
6. 
 
We may also state that where conditions of service of 
employees are not regulated by a statutory provision then such 
employees are to be governed by the principle of “Master and 
Servant”. As the terms and conditions of employment in PIAC are 
admittedly not governed by any statutory provision and the 
employees are amenable to the Rule of “Master and Servant”, Article 
199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 cannot be invoked. Reliance 
is placed on PIA Corporation VS Syed Suleman Alam Rizvi (1996 
SCMR 1185), Pakistan International Airline Corporation and others v. 
Tanweer-ur-Rehman and others (PLD 2010 SC 676) and Abdul 
Wahab and others v. HBL and others (2013 SCMR 1383). In view of 
what has been discussed above, we find no legal justification to 
interfere in the impugned judgment. This appeal is, therefore, 
dismissed.  
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Approved For Reporting 
 
Announced on 16.01.2019 at Islamabad. 
 
Khurram 
