LHC sets aside three Punjab govt notifications
LHC Justice Asim Hafeez declared illegal and set aside three notifications of the Punjab government regarding social security contribution.
The petitioners had challenged the notifications, contending that core provisions of the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 had been made ineffective.
"I refrain from attributing any mala fide to the government for not performing its functions, though delay caused in performance of obligations has inflicted harm to the class of employees," the judge observed.
Justice Hafeez observed that the situation could be cured either by exercising powers in terms of Section 71 of the ordinance or amending the law, if the benchmark had to be linked with minimum wages — incidentally cure through notifications was not a solution but an attempt seeped in illegality.
He observed that the judicial review jurisdiction could not be stretched to address the situation.
"Miseries of the employees can be addressed upon prompt action by the government. Courts cannot compensate for an apparent inaction on the part of the government in guise of interpreting a beneficial legislation," the court observed.
The counsel for petitioners argued that the contribution was solely determinable on the basis of wage notified by the government in terms of Section 71 and not otherwise; notwithstanding fixing of minimum wages under any other dispensation, be it the Punjab Minimum Wage Act 2019 or otherwise.
The counsel contended that invalidity of the notifications was an obvious consequence if sections 2(f), 20 and 71 of the ordinance were strictly enforced.
A counsel submitted that the notification of September 20, 2024 and those preceding it had been issued in accordance with Rule 4(3) of the Provincial Employees Social Security (Contributions) Rules, 1966, emphasising that determination of minimum wages, notwithstanding the nomenclature of statutes, provides legitimate basis for determining payable contribution.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Business Recorder
Employees transferred from T&T to PTC, and subsequently to PTCL: SC judgement
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court by majority of 2 to 1 held that the employees transferred from T&T to PTC, and subsequently to PTCL, retained not only their right to pensionary benefits but also the character of those benefits as dynamic and evolving rights. A three-judge, headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Ayesha A Malik, on Thursday, announced the judgment regarding of pension of PTCL ex-employees. Multiple judgments of various High Courts were impugned before the Court, essentially on the same subject matter being the entitlement of the employees of the erstwhile Telegraph and Telephone (T&T) Department to receive the same pension and pensionary benefits accorded to civil servants, as notified by the federal government from time to time. Justice Yahya and Justice Amin disagreed with the judgment of Justice Ayesha. Justice Yahya judgment said while employees transferred from T&T to Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC), and subsequently to Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) ceased to be civil servants, the statutory framework governing their transfer safeguarded their pensionary entitlements in full: not just as frozen benefits fixed at the time of transfer, but as living rights that were to progress in accordance with prevailing standards applicable to similarly situated public servants. The scheme under Section 9 of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991, and Section 36 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorga-nization) Act, 1996 guarantees the continuation of these entitlements, and the administrative mechanism created under the PTCL Act, including the establishment of Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust (PTET) was intended to facilitate, not frustrate, this guarantee. PTCL and PTET are duty-bound to ensure that the full measure of these entitlements is met, and any interpretation that reduces these rights to static or discretionary payments is contrary to the legislative mandate. The majority judgment clarified that this conclusion and these dispositions, have not been reached in ignorance of the financial concerns raised by PTCL and PTET. The submissions regarding the financial burden and claims of fiscal unsustainability have been duly considered. However, financial difficulty does not absolve a statutory entity of its legal obligations. If the existing pension model is incapable of sustaining the financial burden, it is the model that must be recalibrated, not the statutory entitlements curtailed. That said, the practical challenges identified by PTCL and PTET are real, and it is recognised a rigid timeline for disbursement may not be financially viable. Accordingly, PTCL must acknowledge its continuing financial liability towards former civil servants and reflect this as a declared liability on its financial records in accordance with applicable accounting and corporate law principles. Thereafter, PTCL, through PTET, may determine a feasible disbursement schedule for revised pensionary payments, the needful be done within 90 days, and that the payment process remains transparent and equitable in addressing the rightful claims of the affected pensioners. The chief justice held; CPLA Nos. 412, 420–424, 461–463, and 506 of 2019; CPLA Nos. 424-K, 357-K, and 365-K of 2019; CPLA Nos. 6005, 6006, 6023–6030, 6087–6096, 6101–6106, 6268–6273, and 6364 of 2021, 6453-6456 of 2021; and CPLA Nos. 134–135 of 2022 are dismissed. The impugned judgments of the High Courts are upheld to the extent that they grant pensionary revisions to those transferred employees who were civil servants at the time of their transfer. Such employees are entitled to the continuation of pensionary benefits, including revisions notified by the federal government. The CPLA Nos 2107, 2140, 2141, 2143, 2144, 2145, 2146, and 2147 of 2022 are allowed. The impugned judgments are set aside. The petitioners, being civil servants at the time of transfer, are entitled to continued pensionary revisions as per federal government notifications. The CPLA Nos 2138, 2139, and 2142 of 2022 are allowed, subject to classification confirmation. The matters are remanded to the relevant High Court for factual determination of the service status of the petitioners at the time of transfer. If the petitioners are found to have been civil servants, they shall be entitled to the continuation of pensionary benefits, including revisions notified by the federal government. The CPLA Nos 6205, 6222-6225, 6332, 6333, 6358-6363, 6379, 6437, 6485, 6545-6550, 6553-6556 of 2021, and CPLA Nos 30, 112-114, 118, 139-145, 329, 330, 368-371, 465-471, 645 of 2022 are remanded for determination whether each petitioner held civil-servant status at transfer end, and if so, for corresponding pension revisions. The CPLA No 426-K of 2019; CPLA Nos 1919 and 2066 of 2019; and CPLA Nos 369, 373, and 603 of 2018 are dismissed, as the petitioners either availed VSS, were not civil servants at the time of transfer, or did not establish a statutory entitlement to pensionary revisions under the applicable legal framework. The CPLA Nos 2197, 2199, and 2200–2205 of 2022; CPLA Nos. 2563 and 2564 of 2022; and CPLA Nos 495-K and 496-K of 2023 are remanded to the relevant High Court for determination of the petitioners' employment classification and entitlement to relief in light of the legal principles laid down in this judgment. The CA No 1509 of 2021 is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Crl.O.P. No 28/2018 in Crl.O.P. No 54/2015; Crl.O.P. Nos 56/2018 and 84/2018 in C.P.L.A. No 1643/2014; Crl.O.P. No 144/2022 and Crl.O.P. No 29/2023 in C.P.L.A. No 568/2014 are dismissed as infructuous. Crl.M.A. No 139/2025 in Crl.O.P. No 56/2018 is also dismissed. CMA Nos. 5783/2022, 5641/2022, 5784/2022, 5785/2022, 5786/2022, 5624/2022, 5787/2022, 5788/2022, 5638/2022, 5789/2022, 5883/2022, 5862/2022, 6066/2022, 6075/2022, 6076/2022, 6079/2022, 6074/2022, 6601/2022, 6602/2022 (interim applications for injunctive relief in various CPLAs) are disposed of as infructuous, the main matters having been decided. CMA Nos. 1470/2020 and 7698/2022 in CPLA No. 463/2019; CMA Nos. 1636 and 1637/2022 in CPLA No. 6005/2021; CMA Nos. 1633 and 810/2022 in CPLA No. 6358/2021; and CMA No. 11521/2023 in CPLA No. 6379/2021, and CMA No. 7515/2024 in CPLA No. 6104 of 2021 all seeking impleadment, are dismissed. CMA No. 8153 of 2023 in CPLA No. 424-K of 2019, seeking de-clubbing of the petition, is dismissed. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Express Tribune
Confusion persists over under-trial credit in consecutive sentences
Considerable confusion continues to persist among various state institutions over whether the period of under-trial detention in cases involving multiple consecutive sentences should be credited separately for each sentence or treated as a single adjustment period. The issue surfaced before the Lahore High Court's Multan Bench in the case of convict Saghir Hussain, who claimed to have completed his 100-year prison sentence after securing over 59 years in ordinary and special remissions. However, bureaucratic delays and what he termed "flawed legal advice" remain major impediments preventing his release. Saghir was initially sentenced to death on three counts under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), along with life imprisonment under Section 460 PPC. His appeals were dismissed by the Lahore High Court, after which he approached the Supreme Court, not to challenge his conviction, but to request a reduction in sentence. The apex court converted his death penalties into life sentences on three counts under Section 302/34 PPC. He later filed a miscellaneous application before the Supreme Court requesting that his life sentences be ordered to run concurrently. However, the court rejected the plea and clarified that the three life sentences would run consecutively. Consequently, his cumulative sentence was calculated as 75 years under Section 302/34 PPC and 25 years under Section 460 PPC, in line with Section 57 of the PPC, which equates life imprisonment to 25 years for the purpose of sentence calculation. Though the introduction of the remission system through the Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, benefited the petitioner by allowing him to earn more than 59 years in remissions, he still has approximately 4.5 years left to serve.
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Express Tribune
Bonus for finance officials challenged
Lahore High Court (LHC) Justice Khalid Ishaq has sought arguments on the maintainability of a plea challenging the legality and discriminatory nature of awarding a special honorarium to finance ministry employees for performing their duties during parliamentary budget session. As the proceedings commenced, Justice Ishaq asked what grievance the petitioner had if the government had announced the incentive. The petitioner's counsel responded that the state, under the Constitution, could not play a discriminatory role, adding that preparation of the budget is the prime responsibility of the employees of the finance ministry, which they render once in a year. On the other hand, employees of other institutions work throughout the year but no such honorarium is announced for them, which is a discriminatory act, the counsel contended. The counsel requested the court to set aside the notification issued in this regard by declaring the decision as discriminatory and unlawful.
