Shooting Horses And Pensioners
On December 7, 2003 the decomposed bodies of 70-year old Professor Ghazi Khan Jakharani and his 65-year old wife were found in their house in Gulshan-I-Akbar, Malir. The couple had no children. During autopsies it was found that both had cancer and had been dead for fifteen days. Professor Jakhrani taught at the Jamia Millia College at Malir and after his retirement, for as long as his health held, gave private tuition. According to people living in the vicinity, the two actually died of starvation because of long delays in the payment of Dr Jakhrani’s pension and other dues owing to him by the education department. This is a truly tragic case, possibly involving pensions. Whatever the cause of their death, they died in painful and miserable circumstances.
Five years ago Haji Muhammad Ismail Memon, an advocate Jati (District Thatta) and a member of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, filed a public interest Constitutional Petition in the High Court of Sindh (D-1162/99) under Article 199 of the Constitution challenging the withholding, for well over a decade, by the Government of Sindh of the payment of monthly maintenance allowances to the widows and orphans of government servants which is fully funded by serving government servants. On December 13, 2001, Justices Zahid Kurban Alvi and Mushir Alam handed down their order, quoting extracts “….This petition has been filed under public interest litigation with a prayer that the respondents be directed to immediately release the funds and make payment of all outstanding dues that are payable to the widows and beneficiaries to whom such payments have not been made. The amount is not dependant on budgetary grant as it is supposed to be the amount available in trust with the Government, thus non-payment from this account is illegal and unfair. The amount that is due and payable to the widows should be paid forthwith.” To quote, Ardeshir Cowasjee, “Needless to say, our government being what they are, the order has been ignored”, unquote.
For years old pensioners have been beseeching the Government of Pakistan (GOP) to accept the internationally accepted principle of equal pensions for the same rank/grade regardless of the date of retirement. This principle has been followed in the case of the judiciary whose pensions have already been indexed by the government, both “old” and “new” pensioners getting the same scales. The discriminatory division of pensioners into ‘new’ and ‘old’ pensioners’ is a great injustice, unfortunately in the case of the retired bureaucracy and armed forces personnel the “old” and infirm pensioners have no political clout, their demands are based on justice and fair play. The pensions paid to the ‘old’ pensioners have not been indexed with those of the later retirees of equivalent rank or grade. When a group of pensioners went to the Federal Ombudsman seeking justice, he strongly recommended acceptance of the principle that pensions paid to the ‘old’ retirees be brought in line with their ‘new’ compatriots. President General Ziaul Haq rejected the recommendation, issuing a notification in 1985-86 upholding the ‘old’ and ‘new’ division (only pensions of the judiciary are indexed). When the ‘old’ pensioners went to the Federal Shariat Court questioning “whether government servants of the same grade who retired on different dates could claim the same amount of pensions”, the Court ruled in October 1992 that “‘new’ and ‘old’ was indeed discriminatory, that the date of retirement was not relevant, and that whenever there was any revision of salary and pension, each pensioner was entitled to be paid a pension equal to others in the same grade and category”. Against all the concept of fair play in the world the Government immediately appealed to the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court on technical grounds. Taking its time to ponder the matter, the Court finally set aside the order of the Federal Shariat Court, holding that viz (1) a provision of law could not be challenged (2) the Shariat Court judgment was of a general nature highlighting grievances of the ‘old’ pensioners arising from inflation (3) such a liberal interpretation of pension laws and rules would render them ineffective and (4) it was neither permissible nor possible. In a negation of the spirit and tenets of Islam, the SC held that the pension-related law, as it stands, was neither inconsistent with Quran and Sunnah nor with the constitutionally-guaranteed fundamental rights.
No sensible or compassionate government could possibly accept the injustice of the enormous disparity that exists as the comparative monthly pension scales of the newly retired officers and the retirees of up to the early 70s, most of whom by now should now be over 80 years of age. What about the cost of living, we are dumb but are we also blind and deaf, or simply insensitive? A Maj Gen as a new pensioner gets Rs 24,150.00 while an old pensioner of the same rank gets only Rs 9,460.00, similarly a Brigadier gets Rs 22,425.00 compared to Rs 8,600.00 for the old, for a Colonel Rs 21,275.00 compared to Rs 7,400.00, for a Lt Col Rs 19,550.00 compared to Rs. 7,000.00, for a Major Rs 17,250.00 compared to Rs 6,500.00, for a Captain Rs 11,500.00 compared to Rs 3,500.00. In effect a Captain if he retires today gets more than a Maj Gen who retired 25 years ago! What to talk of morality, is this even logical? In the Civil Service a “new” pensioner Federal Secretary gets Rs 26,450.00 while the “old” pensioner has to make a living with Rs 9,600.00.
In a long and tedious struggle for their rightful dues old pensioners have been continuously stonewalled by all successive governments, including the present one. Whenever they succeed in obtaining a favourable ruling the government of the day employs every possible means to block its implementation. What is of serious concern is that successive governments have been opposing a moral issue on technical grounds. Justice Nazim Siddiqi opined that neither Federal Shariat Court nor Shariat Appellate Bench could deal with “service matters” such as pension or pay. When the petitioner Shahwani protested that when they approached the Federal Shariat Court at the suggestion of the Supreme Court, Justice Sidhwa had clearly stated that the Federal Shariat Court should look into this aspect, Justice Nazim Siddiqi replied that he had to operate within the parameters of the law, Shahwani pointed out that the Shariat Appellate Bench was required to operate within the parameters of Islamic injunctions, and strike down any law which violated the injunctions of Islam which were based on the principle of “Adl-o-Ehsan” since Islamic Justice was superior to man-made laws. Shahwani also referred to “judicial activism”, another name for “Ijtihad”, which the Indian Supreme Court was following. Shahwani was not allowed to complete his arguments, asking the plaintiff to stop in the middle of his submission meant that defence was not allowed to state its case. As far as the principle of indexation being applied to the judiciary, the Supreme Court held that Judges enjoyed Constitutional protection and were in a separate class. Fifteen years of courtroom struggle have left Shahwani feeling defeated, to quote him, “the President and the Finance Minister seem to have no time for poor pensioners who are literally starving and living below the poverty line, and judges waste time discussing legal issues and forget justice and compassion, there is no sense in hitting oneself against these stone walls. I am aware they will face Divine Wrath one day”, unquote.
The “Final Solution” the financial wizards in Islamabad have in mind is that the ranks of the old pensioners are rapidly decreasing due to old age and soon there will be no one left to claim their rightful due. Successive military and the civilian governments have treated the old pensioners as a financial liability, a totally wrong impression being created that billions of rupees would be needed to equalize pensions. This is patently wrong, over 80% pensioners are at the lower ruing of the ladder drawing hardly Rs 1500 per month, the financial outlay would far outweigh the benefits of fulfilling a moral and human obligation. After all, won’t those presently “serving” ever retire? And what will happen to them 20 years hence when their pensions will not be able to keep up with inflation? Justice delayed may be justice denied, in the meantime old pensioners suffer on, putting up with the discrimination of being ‘old’ pensioners, they can lump it for whatever years they have left on this earth. They shoot old horses, don’t they? Why not shoot “old” pensioners?
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment