KARACHI: Over 23,000 pensioners have not received increases, impacting them by Rs.3.169 billion (Rs.488.6 million/month) from July 2019 to June 2024, the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation’s counsel has told the Sindh High Court (SHC).

The statement was recorded during the hearing of a petition by Dr Mohammad Ali Abbasi against non-issuance of his pensionary benefits by the KMC.

The petitioner, who appeared in person, submitted that he retired from the Leprosy Hospital Manghopir, KMC, as the medical superintendent in grade 20 on December 2, 2017, but had not received his full retirement benefits, causing financial hardships.

The counsel for the KMC submitted that the petitioner received Rs27,425,721 and drew Rs241,830 as the monthly pension. He argued that the KMC had not implemented the 15 per cent (as announced in 2019-20) and 10 per cent (as announced in 2020-21) annual pension increases due to a lack of funds from the provincial government.

The counsel said that over 23,000 pensioners had not received such increases, impacting them by Rs3.169 billion (Rs.488.6 million/month) from July 2019 till June 2024.

The stance of the KMC was disputed by the petitioner who was present in person and submitted that the increase was accumulative from time to time and the KMC was not adding any interest on the delayed payment.

A division bench of the higher court comprising Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon after hearing the arguments of the counsel observed that this was a matter of grave concern that for several years, the long and unjustified delay in the payment of pension had been a source of tremendous hardship and humiliation to retiring officials and their families.

The SHC observed that despite the strictures and orders passed by the Supreme Court in its various pronouncements and simplified guidelines laid by the government, such petitions persisted.

The high court observed that the KMC’s counsel stated that the annual increases were a provincial policy decision, and the KMC would implement them if funds were provided for such increases.

The SHC observed that the KMC claimed to be an autonomous body and stated that it had not adopted the increases, so the petitioner’s claim was invalid. The high court observed that on the contrary, the petitioner stated that the increases had been paid per bank statements, and the KMC was obligated to continue them.

The high court observed that without touching the merits of the case of the issue of annual increases in the pensionary emoluments of the petitioner, in terms of policy decision of the provincial government, such annual increase, if permissible in the case of employees of the KMC, required further assessment to be made by the court of plenary jurisdiction.

The SHC observed that the KMC’s reluctance due to funding issues and lack of adoption of provincial increases, created a factual dispute that could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction, requiring the petitioner to pursue other legal avenues.