KP Police Risk Allowance: FCC Rejects Ministerial Staff’s Parity Claim

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

Departmental affiliation alone does not establish risk-allowance entitlement

The Federal Constitutional Court has rejected a claim by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Department ministerial employees for the risk allowance paid to uniformed personnel performing active policing duties. It held that Article 25 does not require parity between employees whose relevant duties, responsibilities and occupational risks differ materially. Serving the same department was not enough. Judgment, paragraphs 7–13.

In Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Ihsan Khan and others, C.P.L.A. No. 544-P of 2025, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, set aside the Peshawar High Court judgment and dismissed the employees' writ petition. Justice Aamer Farooq authored the judgment on a bench with Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah. Judgment, paragraph 14.

The judgment records hearing and dating on 4 June 2026, with a separate endorsement of announcement in open court on 9 October 2026. The official FCC register lists upload on 14 October 2026. These dates should not be collapsed into a claim that the Court heard and decided the case for the first time on upload day.

What the employees claimed

The respondents worked in the province's Police Establishment. They argued that denying them risk allowance while paying other employees of the same department violated constitutional equality. The Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench, allowed their petition on 10 April 2025 in W.P. No. 90-M of 2024 and directed extension of the benefit. The provincial government appealed. Judgment, paragraphs 1 and 3.

The government's case was that the respondents performed administrative and clerical work, not active operational duties. It described the allowance as compensation for particular hazards of policing. The employees relied on their common departmental association and supported the High Court's direction. Judgment, paragraphs 4–5.

The FCC framed the issue as whether the respondents fell within the entitled class of police personnel or whether the law distinguished them from ministerial staff. It found the distinction legally and factually material. Judgment, paragraphs 2 and 7–9.

The statutory structure distinguishes operational and ministerial roles

The Court considered the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Act, 2017, including the definitions in section 2(1)(s) and (t), police duties under section 4, establishment and constitution under sections 6 and 7, and appointment of ministerial staff under section 44. The statutory establishment includes different categories of personnel; membership in the broader establishment does not erase their distinct functions. Judgment, paragraph 8.

The Court also considered the Police Department Ministerial Service Rules, 1974. They provide a separate framework of recruitment, eligibility and service composition for ministerial staff. The Court found no provision requiring a person appointed under those rules to perform active policing simply because the appointment was within the Police Department. Judgment, paragraph 8.

This reasoning is about the relevant legal classifications and work. It should not be read as saying that administrative staff make no contribution to policing, or that their work can never involve any difficulty. The question was entitlement to the particular allowance sanctioned for another class.

The allowance notification, rather than the department's name, controls coverage

The judgment identifies the notification dated 30 April 2009 as the seminal instrument providing one initial pay per month as risk allowance for uniformed police personnel. The Court read the allowance against that notified class and the distinction between active police duties and ministerial or support work. Judgment, paragraph 9.

An allowance compensating the hazards of particular duties does not automatically attach to every appointment in the same administrative department. The claimant must establish that he or she belongs to the class for which the competent authority sanctioned it. Judgment, paragraphs 10–12.

The article does not independently certify the current rupee amount, every subsequent allowance revision or entitlement of every police category. The Court decided the notification-based parity claim and the evidence before it.

Article 25 allows a rational classification

The FCC applied the constitutional principle that equality does not demand identical treatment regardless of duties, responsibilities or service conditions. A classification is permissible where it rests on intelligible differentia and has a rational connection with its object. It cited I.A. Sharwani and others v. Government of Pakistan, 1991 SCMR 1041. Judgment, paragraph 10 and footnote 1.

The distinction here was connected directly to the allowance's compensatory purpose. Uniformed personnel may perform raids, arrests, law-and-order operations, security assignments and other work involving physical danger. The respondents' work was administrative, clerical and ministerial. The Court held that their common employer did not eliminate those differences. Judgment, paragraphs 10–11.

That is a finding of a rational link, not merely approval of a label. If an allowance were restricted by an irrelevant or arbitrary distinction, the same equality framework could require judicial scrutiny. The Court expressly preserved intervention where a classification is arbitrary, discriminatory or lacks rational basis. Judgment, paragraph 12.

Equal pay requires a proper comparator

The Court also rejected reliance on equal pay for equal work without showing that the compared employees were similarly situated in all material respects. Nature of work, degree of responsibility, working conditions and risk were relevant. The respondents had not demonstrated comparable active police work under comparable conditions. Judgment, paragraph 11.

This prevents an allowance claim from being established by department membership alone. It does not make a job title conclusive in every future case. The actual functions and the instrument granting the allowance remain important. A materially different factual record must be assessed rather than assumed to be identical to this one.

For counsel, the comparator should therefore be identified precisely. Which class receives the allowance, under which notification, for what duties, and on what basis is the claimant similarly placed? A broad statement that both groups work for the police leaves the decisive questions unanswered.

Why the High Court's parity approach failed

The FCC held that the High Court had proceeded primarily on common departmental membership without sufficiently examining the difference in service functions or the rational basis of the allowance. A court could not enlarge the notified class merely because another category considered itself entitled to the same benefit. Judgment, paragraphs 12–13.

The respondents' claim failed because they relied essentially on affiliation and did not establish the required similarity. The denial was not hostile discrimination on the circumstances found. The High Court judgment was consequently set aside. Judgment, paragraphs 13–14.

The ruling is not a prohibition on every equality challenge to an allowance. It identifies what a claimant must establish and why that foundation was missing here. The competent authority's role also remains subject to constitutional and statutory limits.

Practical points before making or defending a claim

The following are implications of the reasoning rather than a new mandatory document list ordered by the Court:

• Obtain the actual notification granting the allowance and identify its covered class.
• Establish the claimant's recruitment framework and current functions.
• Identify the comparator's duties, responsibilities, working conditions and relevant risks.
• Explain the connection between those facts and the allowance's purpose.
• Address why the distinction is rational, or why it is allegedly arbitrary, using evidence rather than departmental labels.
• Separate a claim to an existing notified benefit from a request that government create or extend a benefit as policy.

The FCC's judgment concerns this allowance and these respondents. It does not separately resolve every service-forum objection, every future notification or every category of support work. Those questions require the governing instruments and their own record.

For related analysis, visit our service-law articles. Our separate PTCL retirement-benefits article concerns protected service terms and unfinished proceedings, rather than entitlement to a hazard allowance.

The result and the dates that matter

The provincial government's petition was converted into an appeal and allowed. The judgment dated 10 April 2025 was set aside, and the employees' writ petition stood dismissed. No fresh grant of risk allowance or reconsideration direction was made. Judgment, paragraph 14.

The supplied PDF ends with a 4 June 2026 date and a separate open-court announcement endorsement of 9 October 2026. Its upload on 14 October is publication information, not a substitute for those judicial dates. It is approved for reporting; no reporter citation is printed.

Frequently asked questions

Is every Police Department employee entitled to this risk allowance?

No. The Court held that coverage depends on the relevant class, functions and risks; department membership alone does not establish it. Judgment, paragraphs 9–12.

Did the FCC hold that Article 25 prohibits all service classifications?

No. It upheld the rational distinction in this case and preserved scrutiny of arbitrary or irrational classifications. Judgment, paragraphs 10–12.

Did the employees retain the High Court relief?

No. The FCC allowed the government's appeal and dismissed their writ petition. Judgment, paragraph 14.

Sources

The primary source is the supplied six-page judgment. The full I.A. Sharwani decision has not been independently reviewed for this article; its role is reported as used by the FCC in paragraph 10.

• Read the complete supplied judgment.
• Download the judgment PDF.
• Official FCC judgment PDF.
• Official judgment register.
• Searchable judgment summary and full metadata.