KARACHI, Sept 9: The Sindh High Court advised the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on Thursday to sympathetically consider the plea of its retired employees for enhancement of pension.
Disposing of a writ petition moved by Asad Maroof Hameedi, who retired from the CAA in 1995, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Justice Zawwar Hussain Jaffery observed in its order that the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted by the court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction but 'it expects that the respondent (the CAA) would sympathetically consider his and other retired employees' case'.
Appearing in person, the petitioner submitted that the CAA had raised the salaries and allowances of its serving employees twice since 1995. The remunerations had gone up by about 95 per cent as a result of the enhancements announced in the years 1998 and 2002.
However, there had been no increase in the pensionary benefits of the retired employees. Medical allowance of the serving staff was raised from Rs450 to Rs1,080 but the allowance permissible to the superannuated employees who required greater medical care had remained unchanged.
Citing the CAA and the federal defence ministry as respondents, the petitioner submitted that other public sector organizations comparable to the CAA such as the State Bank of Pakistan and the Pakistan International Airlines increased the pensionary benefits of their retired employees whenever they gave a raise to their serving employees. The retired CAA workers, however, faced discrimination in this respect, which was in violation of constitutional guarantees of equality of citizens.
The division bench, which heard the petitioner in detail, observed in its disposal order that he could not claim increase in his pension every time the CAA employees were given a salary raise 'as a matter of right'.
There was no vested legal or constitutional right to ensure a corresponding increase in the pensionary benefits. However, the bench expressed its agreement with the contention raised by the petitioner that 'establishments and corporations controlled or run by the government and the state functionaries are required to act in a fair, impartial and transparent manner in discharging their functions so as to avoid discrimination, arbitrary treatment and denial of right to anyone'.
Expressing sympathy for the petitioner, the bench observed that he was 'retired and subsisting on a meagre pension, which was not adequate to meet even his basic needs'. The respondents, it hoped, would consider increasing pensions with salaries in accordance with the practice of other, comparable organizations.
