ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) to pay 24 years’ worth of pension to its former employee, Mustafa Ansari.
The court also warned that if the order is not implemented, the Managing Director of PIA must appear in person.
A three-member bench, headed by Justice Shahid Waheed, heard the case. The petitioner’s counsel argued that his client retired in 2002 under a scheme, and although pension and other benefits were approved following an order of the Sindh High Court, the dues have still not been paid. He submitted that other employees continue to receive their pensions regularly.
Justice Shahid Waheed asked whether pension payments could be withheld under any law. PIA’s law officer requested time to seek instructions from the institution. The court remarked that if Mustafa Ansari is not paid his pension before the next hearing, the Managing Director will have to appear personally. The hearing was then adjourned until April 23.
Sohail Khan adds: The Supreme Court has held that a vague assertion of “prior personal engagements” cannot, by any stretch of legal reasoning, constitute a sufficient cause for adjournment.
A two-member SC bench comprising Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan issued a judgment on an appeal against a verdict given on December 5, 2025 of the Lahore High Court in a case titled Abbas Ali Shah Versus Misha Zeb Khan, etc.
“If anything, it betrays a callous disregard for professional discipline and a troubling lack of appreciation of the responsibility that accompanies the privilege of audience before this court,” says a seven-page judgment, authored by CJP Yahya Afridi.
According to the judgment the instant appeal was fixed for hearing on April 2, 2026; however, a written application for adjournment was moved on behalf of Iftikhar Ahmad Bashir, counsel for the petitioner, stating that he would not be able to attend due to prior personal engagement. All personal engagements were already planned before the issuance of the cause list; since he had no other attendant, therefore, leave of the court was sought for permission not to appear for the aforesaid reasons, said the judgment.
The court, however, held that prior personal engagements “cannot, by any stretch of legal reasoning, constitute a sufficient cause for adjournment”.Adjournment of cases of all kinds for hearing shall only be granted on proper application, filed by Advocate-on-Record except where it is sought by a party conducting his case in person.
Thus, the court ruled that the procedural mechanism for seeking adjournment requires that the application be moved through the Advocate-on-Record appointed in the matter.The court further held that the requirement reflects the central role of the AoR in the conduct of proceedings before this court and the attendant responsibility to ensure that matters fixed for hearing are effectively prosecuted without disruption caused by the absence, convenience, or scheduling preferences of individual counsel.
“The framework is put in place to ensure that proceedings before this court are not stalled on grounds unconnected with any legal or unavoidable impediment,” says the judgment.
