| Case ID |
23458dc0-e07c-4b23-baa2-78c979c351cf |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Suo Motu Case No. 20 of 2016 and Human Rights Case |
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan, led by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, delivered a landmark decision addressing the grievances of retired employees from United Bank Limited (UBL), Habib Bank Limited (HBL), and Allied Bank Limited (ABL). The Court mandated an immediate increase in the minimum pension for all pensioners of these banks to Rs. 8,000 per month, effective from the date of the judgment. Additionally, the Court ordered an annual increment of 5% in the pension amounts, effective every 1st of January. This decision encompassed all categories of pensioners, including original retirees, those with pensions linked to frozen basic pay, and retrenched employees who served more than ten years at the time of retrenchment. The ruling ensures that pensioners receive a dignified and sustainable livelihood, aligning with their fundamental rights to life and dignity as enshrined in Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The judgment underscores the Court's commitment to socio-economic justice, mandating that pension amounts must adequately support the basic living standards of retired employees, thereby preventing financial penury and upholding the integrity of pensionary benefits post-privatization. |
| Summary |
In a significant judicial intervention, the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the pervasive issue of inadequate pensionary benefits provided to retired employees of United Bank Limited (UBL), Habib Bank Limited (HBL), and Allied Bank Limited (ABL). The case, initiated as Suo Motu Case No. 20 of 2016 along with multiple Human Rights Cases and Constitutional Petitions, centered on the non-payment and minimal increments in pensions post-privatization of these nationalized banks. Retired employees, represented by prominent advocates such as Shahid Anwar Bajwa and Ayesha Hamid, argued that the frozen pensions amounted to a violation of their constitutional rights to life and dignity under Articles 9 and 14. The Court, recognizing the gravity of subjecting pensioners to financial hardship, mandated an immediate increase of the minimum pension to Rs. 8,000 per month with an annual 5% increment, ensuring that pensioners maintain a decent standard of living. This decision not only reinforces the accountability of privatized entities in honoring their financial obligations but also sets a precedent for safeguarding the socio-economic rights of retired public sector employees. By enforcing these measures, the Supreme Court underscores the importance of upholding contractual and statutory commitments towards pensioners, thereby promoting economic justice and human dignity. This landmark judgment is poised to impact the banking sector significantly, compelling privatized banks to reassess and restructure their pension schemes in compliance with constitutional mandates. The ruling also highlights the pivotal role of the judiciary in mediating between employee rights and corporate responsibilities, ensuring that the privatization process does not undermine the welfare of long-serving employees. As a result, this case serves as a cornerstone for future litigation concerning pension rights and sets a robust framework for the enhancement of retirement benefits, reflecting the Court's dedication to equitable treatment of all employees irrespective of their tenure or retirement status. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Habib Bank Limited (HBL),
United Bank Limited (UBL),
Allied Bank Limited (ABL),
Pakistan Banking Council
|
| Judges |
Mian Saqib Nisar, Chief Justice,
Umar Ata Bandial, Justice,
Ijaz ul Ahsan, Justice
|
| Lawyers |
Mehr Khan Malik,
Syed Ali Zafar,
Shahid Anwar Bajwa,
Makhdoom Ali Khan,
Hashmat Ali Habib,
Javed Iqbal,
Salman Aslam Butt,
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah,
Zahid Nawaz Cheema,
Mehmood A. Sheikh,
Ahmed Awais,
Tipu Salman Makhdoom,
Tariq Aziz,
Ayesha Hamid,
Sikandar Bashir Mohmand,
Ali Zafar,
Abdul Raheem Bhatti,
Tariq Mehmood Khokhar,
Shoaib Shaheen,
Raja Muhammad Sarfraz,
Babar A. Khilji,
Umer Aslam Khan,
Rai M. Nawaz Khan Kharal,
Raja M. Farooq
|
| Petitioners |
Mehr Khan Malik,
Tariq Aziz,
Abdul Raheem Bhatti,
Mehmood A. Sheikh,
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah,
Javed Iqbal,
Syed Ali Zafar,
Tariq Waheed,
M. Naseem Butt,
Rehan Akhtar,
Bakhtiarullah,
Shahid Anwar Bajwa,
Sikandar Bashir Mohmand,
Hashmat Ali Habib,
Raja Muhammad Sarfraz,
Salman Aslam Butt,
Babar A. Khilji,
Shoaib Shaheen,
Umer Aslam Khan,
Rai M. Nawaz Khan Kharal,
Tariq Mehmood Khokhar,
Ahmed Awais,
Ayesha Hamid,
Zahid Nawaz Cheema,
Raja M. Farooq,
Tipu Salman Makhdoom,
Mahboob Ahmad Soomro
|
| Respondents |
United Bank Limited (UBL),
Habib Bank Limited (HBL),
Allied Bank Limited (ABL)
|
| Citations |
2018 SLD 702,
2018 SCMR 736
|
| Other Citations |
Bahadur Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Finance, Islamabad and others (2017 SCMR 2066),
Ora Lee Williams v. Walker Thomas Furniture Company [350 F.2d 445 (1965)],
Marybeth Armandariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745 (2000), Supreme Court of California],
Cresswell v. Potter [(1978) 1 WLR 255 (note)],
The Port Caledonia and The Anna [(1903) P 184 Probate Division],
Fry v. Lane [(1888) 40 Ch D 312, 322],
Portman Building Society v. Dusangh [(2000) 2 All ER (Comm) 221, Court of Appeal],
Boustany v. Pigott [(1995) 69 P & CR 298 Privy Council],
Dewan Salman Fibre Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary, M/O Finance and others (2015 PTD 2304),
Shri Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others v. V.R. Rudani and others (AIR 1989 SC 1607),
Lt. Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan v. The Controller of Estate Duty etc. (PLD 1961 SC 119 @ 127),
The Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Works Division and 2 others (PLD 1971 SC 279 @ 287),
Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and 2 others v. Government of Pakistan and others (PLD 2009 SC 507 @ 527),
Various others from the case text
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan,
Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974
|
| Sections |
Article 9,
Article 14
|