Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199,4(1)(c)

Summary: The petitioner, a Medical Technologist at Dow University of Health Sciences, served six years on a contractual basis (2009–2015) and approximately nine years as a regular employee (2015–2024). Upon retirement, the University refused her pension, arguing that only regular service counts and her regular service fell short of the ten-year minimum. The Court held that continuous contractual service followed by regularization cannot be excluded for pension purposes. Relying on Supreme Court precedent (2025 SCMR 168), the Court directed the respondents to include her contractual service in calculating pension and release her pensionary benefits within three months. Sections Used: Article 199 – Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Section 4(1)(c) – DUHS Pension Statutes (contractual exclusion clause) Two 2-word descriptions for the case: Pension Entitlement Contractual Service O R D E R Petitioner has filed this Constitution Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, seeking the following relief:- To direct the Respondent No.1&2 to allow the pension of the petitioner because the petitioner served fifteen years as an officer of 18 grade, Medical Technologist;   To direct the respondent No.2 to calculate the contractual period of service for the petitioner from 16.06.2009 to 14.08.2015 and consider it as an employed tenure.   The case of the petitioner is that she was initially appointed as Medical Technologist on a contract basis on 16-06-2009 in Dow University of Health Sciences and continued to serve the institution with dedication. However, her contract was periodically extended, and she was subsequently regularized on 15- 08-2015 in accordance with the institutional policy. It was submitted that the petitioner rendered about six years of contractual service followed by approximately nine years of regular service, and thus her total service comes to nearly fifteen years. As such, she is entitled to a pension.   Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was retired on 23- 09-2024 on attaining the age of superannuation; however, the respondent University refused…