Exclusion of Dearness Allowance from Pension Calculations

In W.P. No. 3346 of 2009, the Lahore High Court examined whether early retirees of State Bank of Pakistan Banking Services Corporation (SBP BSC) were entitled to have their 17% Dearness Allowance (DA) merged into their monetized salary for post-retirement benefits. The petitioners argued that their exclusion from this adjustment was discriminatory and unconstitutional under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan.

Background:

The petitioners, ex-employees of SBP BSC, had opted for early retirement under the SBP BSC Staff Regulations, 2005. At the time of their retirement (between September 2006 and April 2007), the DA was granted as a separate allowance and was explicitly excluded from the monetized salary, which was used as the basis for calculating pension, gratuity, and provident fund entitlements.

On March 20, 2007, the SBP BSC’s Board of Directors decided to increase the monetized salaries of serving employees by 20%, incorporating the DA into their salary structure. However, this increase was only extended to employees in service as of June 1, 2007, thereby excluding those who had already retired. The petitioners claimed that this decision discriminated against them and sought a retrospective merger of DA into their salaries from September 1, 2006 to enhance their post-retirement benefits.

Key Issues:

Finality of Voluntary Retirement Decisions: Can employees who voluntarily retired under a defined scheme later claim additional benefits granted to serving employees?

Classification of Employees Under Article 25 of the Constitution: Were early retirees and serving employees similarly placed for the purpose of pension calculations, or did they belong to legally distinct categories?

Employer’s Discretion Over Salary Adjustments: Can an employer restrict financial benefits to serving employees without extending them to former employees who had already received full retirement benefits?

Failure to Approach the Court with Clean Hands: Did the petitioners conceal material facts, including prior pension increases of 8% (May 2008) and 15% (November 2009), in an attempt to secure additional financial gains?

Court’s Analysis:

Finality of Voluntary Retirement and Estoppel: The Court held that the petitioners had voluntarily opted for early retirement and accepted the financial package without protest. Once an employee finalizes their retirement benefits, they cannot later claim benefits introduced exclusively for serving employees. The doctrine of estoppel prevented the petitioners from reopening a settled financial arrangement.

No Violation of Article 25 - Valid Classification of Employees: The Court ruled that early retirees and serving employees were not similarly placed. Since Article 25 only guarantees equal treatment among persons of the same class, the petitioners could not claim parity with serving employees. The Court followed the precedent in Wali-ur-Rehman vs. State Life Insurance Corporation (2006 SCMR 1079), which held that retired employees cannot claim financial benefits introduced for serving employees due to economic and policy adjustments.

Employer’s Right to Modify Compensation Structures: The Court reaffirmed the discretion of SBP BSC’s Board of Directors to revise salary structures and incorporate allowances for serving employees without extending such benefits to retirees. Since the DA was originally a separate allowance and not part of the monetized salary, its later discontinuation could not be challenged by the petitioners.

Failure to Approach the Court with Clean Hands: The petitioners failed to disclose that they had already benefited from two pension increases - 8% in May 2008 and an additional 15% in November 2009. This material concealment undermined their credibility and supported the respondents' argument that the petition was an afterthought designed to obtain undue financial benefits.

Court’s Conclusion:

Based on these findings, the Court ruled that the petitioners had no legal entitlement to demand a retrospective merger of DA into their monetized salary. There was no violation of constitutional rights, as the employer’s policy did not constitute discrimination under Article 25. The petitioners were estopped from claiming additional financial benefits after having voluntarily retired and accepted their severance packages. The writ petition was dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.

Contact Us:

If you are facing pension disputes, employment benefit claims, or regulatory challenges in banking law, AUJ LAWYERS LLP offers expert legal counsel and representation. Our team specializes in employment law, financial institutions litigation, and pension disputes, ensuring that your rights and financial interests are protected. For professional legal assistance, contact AUJ LAWYERS LLP today.

We are here to help

Talk to our lawyers today. We tailor our services around your legal needs so that we can reach the desired outcome together.