IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)  
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB  
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 264 OF 2017 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 15.12.2016 
passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad 
on Appeal No. 3272(R)CS/2012) 
 
Muhammad Younis 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
 
Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer, Pakistan Railways, 
Lahore etc 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner:  
In person 
 
For the Respondents: 
Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Manzoor Malik Moor, A.O.  
 
Date of Hearing:  
31.01.2018 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.- Vide Office Memorandum dated 
04.09.2001, Government of Pakistan revised basic pay scales and 
fringed benefits of all its civil employees. On account of such 
revision, revised pension scheme was also introduced under the 
same Office Memorandum whereunder option was given to the 
employees either to draw pay in the existing basic pay scales that 
were lastly revised in 1994 or under the new revised scales. The 
petitioner, an employee of Pakistan Railways, is one of those 
employees who opted for pay scales that were revised in 1994. 
After exercising such option, petitioner retired from service on 
31.03.2002 upon attaining the age of superannuation.  
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 264 OF 2017 
2
2. 
 
The dispute in these proceedings relates to quantum of 
increase that was made in pensions under the Office Memorandum 
No. F.4(I)-Reg.6/2009 dated 13.07.2009 and Office Memorandum 
No. F.4(1)-Reg.6/2010/721 dated 05.07.2010 whereby the pension 
was increased with effect from 01.07.2009 and 01.07.2010 
respectively. In terms of both these Office Memorandums the 
pensioners who retired before 01.12.2001 were entitled to an 
increase of 20% whereas those who retired after 01.12.2001 were 
entitled to a raise of 15%. Considering the fixation of two different 
rates to be discriminatory, the petitioner agitated the matter 
seeking increase to the extent of 20% as was being granted to 
pensioners who retired on or before 01.12.2001. When denied of 
such relief, the petitioner appealed to the Federal Service Tribunal. 
The Service Tribunal vide impugned judgment held that as the 
petitioner had already been granted increase of 5% under Office 
Memorandum dated 04.09.2001 read with Office Memorandum No. 
F.1(15)Imp/2001 dated 13.05.2002 and the increases granted vide 
Office Memorandums dated 13.07.2009 and 05.10.2010 were only 
to the extent of 15%, he is not entitled to any further increase. 
Against such decision, present petition has been filed.  
 
3. 
 
The case of the department also was that the petitioner 
had unduly received 5% increase under Office Memorandum dated 
04.09.2001 to which he was not entitled. The petitioner who 
appears in person states that the 5% increase that was initially 
granted to those pensioners who retired on or before 01.12.2001 
vide Office Memorandums dated 04.09.2001, the same benefit of 
5% increase was extended to those pensioners as well who retired 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 264 OF 2017 
3
after 01.12.2001 in terms of Office Memorandum dated 13.05.2002 
and such increase granted to him had nothing to do with the 
subsequent increases in pension made from time to time under 
various Office Memorandums. In order to establish that 5% 
increase under 2001 Office Memorandum had nothing to do with 
subsequent increases in pension, he referred to sub paragraph 3 of 
paragraph 1 of Office Memorandum dated 13.05.2002, which reads 
“1(iii) The employees who opted for 1994 pay scales and retired 
before or after 1.12.2001 shall be entitled to 5% increase in 
pension.” He stated that the subject of Office Memorandum dated 
13.05.2002 was removal of anomalies that were contained in Office 
Memorandum No. F.1(5)Imp/2001 dated 04.09.2001. He then read 
paragraph 16(g)(iii) of the Office Memorandum dated 04.09.2001 
and explained that under this paragraph, an increase of 5% was 
allowed to only those pensioners who retired upto i.e. 01.12.2001 
and not to those like him who retired after 01.12.2001. However, in 
terms of sub paragraph 3 of Office Memorandum dated 13.05.2002 
titled as ‘removal of anomalies’, benefit of 5% increase was 
extended to those pensioners as well who retired after 01.12.2001. 
Hence 5% increase under Office Memorandum dated 04.09.2001 
read with Office Memorandum dated 13.05.2002 was entitlement 
of the petitioner independent of all increases that were made under 
Office Memorandums issued thereafter from time to time. Thus the 
stand of the respondent that 5% increase was unduly received by 
him under Office Memorandum dated 04.09.2001 is not tenable.  
 
4. 
 
In terms of Office Memorandums dated 13.07.2009 
and 05.07.2010, those who retired on or before 01.12.2001 were 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 264 OF 2017 
4
given 20% rise in pension whereas those who retired thereafter 
were given only 15% rise. As to the fixation of two different rates of 
increase in pension for pensioners who had retired on different 
dates, the case of the petitioner is that there should not be two 
different rates of increase and all pensioners should be given the 
same percentage of increase in pension irrespective of their date of 
retirement. Different rates of increase have been called in question 
on the ground that the Office Memorandums of 2009 and 2010 are 
discriminatory being violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of 
Pakistan.  
 
5. 
 
In the case of Federation of Pakistan Vs. I.A. Sherwani 
and others (2005 SCMR 292) it was held by this Court that the 
distinction between ‘old pensioners’ and ‘new pensioners’ is 
necessary as the quantum of pension is determined keeping in 
view the difference of pay in different time periods. The relevant 
portion from paragraph No. 13 of the judgment is reproduced 
below:- 
“It is noted that, while in service the employees of any grade all 
the time do not get the same pray. For example, an employee, who 
enters into service earlier and get increments, his salary must be 
more than an employee, who joined service in the same grade after 
a year of the earlier employee. While serving-in the same grade, the 
employees get different pay, how they, could ask for computation of 
their pension in violation of Pension Rules in force on the date of 
retirement of civil servants. Admittedly, there is no contract between 
the pensioners and the Government regarding terms/conditions 
relating to the change of rate of pension in future, as such, the 
distinction between old pensioners and new pensioners could not 
be undone and each pensioner would get pay according to 
his entitlement under the law and this could not be termed as 
discriminatory. Pension is regarded as wealth and inequality in its 
distribution does not render it un-Islamic nor different rates could be 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 264 OF 2017 
5
termed as discriminatory. The quantum of pension is determined 
having taken into consideration; (1) the length of qualifying service 
(2) emoluments drawn and (3) as per rates prescribed in relevant 
rules. The concept of "Adl" and "Ehsan" as enunciated in Islamic 
Principles is not contrary to the rules of pension, as applicable to the 
retired civil servants of Pakistan.” 
 
6. 
 
We are not impressed by the argument that there is 
discrimination as there is bifurcation between pensioners who 
retired on or before 01.12.2001 and those who retired thereafter. 
The same was considered necessary in order to maintain a uniform 
rise in pension due to the different rate of salaries the ex-
employees were drawing at the time of their retirement. Hence 
keeping in sight the above judgment, we are of the opinion that the 
petitioner is entitled only to a 15% increase in pension as 
stipulated in the Office Memorandums of 2009 and 2010 based on 
reasonable classification. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.  
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
Islamabad, the 
 
Announced on ____________ by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Faisal Arab  
 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
