Contract Service Before Regularisation To Count Towards Pension: SC
ISLAMABAD, (APP – UrduPoint / Pakistan Point News – 18th Aug, 2026) The Supreme Court has ruled that employees appointed on contract against permanent posts and subsequently regularised may have their continuous prior contract service counted towards pension and other financial benefits.
Judgment on Civil Petitions
A three-member bench comprising Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar announced the judgment on 20 civil petitions filed by the Punjab school education Department. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar authored the judgment.
Key Points:
- Pension as an Earned Right: The court held that pension is neither a reward nor charity but an earned right intended to provide financial security to employees after retirement.
- Regularisation and Contract Service: The cases involved women officers appointed on contract in 2010 against Grade-18 posts and subsequently regularised in 2011.
- Denial of Pension Injustifiable: Completely disregarding their continuous contract service would amount to depriving them of past service without lawful justification, the court ruled.
- Interpretation of Rules: The relevant rules should be interpreted in a manner that advances justice rather than denying legitimate rights on technical grounds.
- Counting Contract Service for Pension: Continuous temporary or contract service can be counted towards pension if an employee is subsequently regularised.
- Distinction from Retrospective Regularisation: However, counting previous contract service for pension is distinct from giving retrospective effect to regularisation.
- Protecting Rights of Other Employees: Changing seniority could affect the rights of other employees, who cannot be adversely affected without being heard.
- Critique of Contract Practice: The Supreme Court directed government departments to reconsider the practice of keeping employees against permanent posts on contract for indefinite periods as it denies pensionary benefits after prolonged service is inconsistent with justice.
