DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25575.41124
From individual hardship to an institutional lesson for the future of TTS faculty
The recent dismissal of CPLA No. 606-P/2019 filed by the University of Agriculture Peshawar (UAP), maintaining the judgment of the Peshawar High Court in favour of Prof. Muhammad Subhan Qureshi, brought an important chapter of a long-running TTS pension dispute to a judicial conclusion.
But the story does not begin with the pension claim, nor does it end with the Court’s judgment.
It raises a broader institutional question:
Was the Tenure Track System (TTS) at UAP established as a mechanism for recognition of academic merit—or did its implementation, in some cases, become a source of prolonged institutional hardship for the very faculty members it was designed to recognize?
This question deserves consideration not merely in relation to one professor, but in the wider interest of transparent university governance and the protection of academic merit.
Recognition of Merit and Service to the University
Prof. Qureshi was selected as Professor under TTS through letter No. 162/S-I dated 1 August 2013, with effect from the 8th meeting of the Syndicate held on 6 February 2013, along with twelve other faculty members. The TTS framework was intended to provide open recognition of academic merit under the Model Tenure Track Process Statutes 2008 of the Higher Education Commission.
During his public service, Prof. Qureshi also undertook initiatives that, according to his account, strengthened the University’s academic, industrial and community linkages. These included activation of the University Feed Mill through private-sector engagement, postgraduate research linkages with industry, revolving funds in Poultry Science and the Pharmacy Shop, international conferences on Dairy Science Park, Solar Energy and One Health, biorisk-management training supported by SNL-US, and initiatives to promote entrepreneurship among educated youth.
These activities were intended to connect the University with industry, students, professionals and farming communities and to extend the University’s contribution beyond the conventional boundaries of academic teaching.
The central question therefore becomes whether extraordinary service and institutional initiative should ultimately become a source of recognition—or a source of difficulty for the person undertaking it.
The Switch-Back Issue
The TTS experience at UAP subsequently became complicated.
Six professors were switched back from TTS to BPS positions through Registrar letter No. 627/R/UAP dated 10 February 2017, with another case following later. Prof. Qureshi’s case had already been recommended by the DTRC in its meeting of 2 February 2016 and submitted through letter No. FAHVS/469 dated 28 March 2016.
A revised DTRC, following advice from the Registrar’s Office, again considered the matter through letter No. 4786/LM/AUP dated 21 December 2017. The document describes this as the Final Review under Annex G of the TTS Statutes.
Meanwhile, Prof. Qureshi’s salary was stopped in February 2018 after completion of four years as Professor TTS. His account records that the resulting financial and personal pressures became severe, particularly in the context of his requests concerning seven months’ salary and his switch-back from TTS to BPS, which he states had already been allowed by the Syndicate on 20 October 2016 and implemented for other faculty members. Resultantly, his wife passed away on 6 February, 2019.
These matters were subsequently brought to the notice of the Vice Chancellor through a letter dated 18 April 2019, including a request for release of pension.
The Judicial Record
The difficulties experienced by TTS faculty members were not confined to one case.
Prof. Hamidullah Shah and four other colleagues, after being selected as Meritorious Professors (BPS-22), faced an order of UAP dated 21 September 2016 concerning recovery of TTS salaries and delay in their promotion.
Their Writ Petition No. 2089-P/2017 was admitted by the Peshawar High Court on 11 September 2017. The University’s challenge was subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 22 January 2018 in Civil Petition No. 4980 of 2017.
The judicial record, as described in the present account, included recognition that the delay in processing the promotion cases was attributable to the respondents and that recovery could therefore not be effected from the petitioners.
Relief was subsequently extended to Prof. Zahir Shah and five others through the Peshawar High Court judgment in WP No. 5120-P/2017 dated 20 February 2018.
Prof. Muhammad Subhan Qureshi’s case was addressed through the Peshawar High Court judgment in WP No. 5127-P/2018 dated 28 May 2019, allowing his switch-back from TTS to BPS and directing that his case be dealt with in the same terms as WP No. 5120-P/2017.
UAP challenged that judgment through CPLA No. 606-P/2019. The Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan dismissed the CPLA on 21 September 2026, thereby maintaining the High Court judgment.
Thus, what began as an institutional dispute concerning the treatment of TTS faculty ultimately acquired a substantial judicial history.
From Judicial Relief to Institutional Implementation
The dismissal of the CPLA provided an important point of closure at the judicial level. Prof. Qureshi subsequently submitted an application to UAP, seeking the implementation of the judgment and the settlement of outstanding pension liabilities. The Vice Chancellor, Prof. Sarzamin Khan, was concerned about the prolonged delay in paying these liabilities and advised the Registrar to process the case without creating further hurdles. Consequently, a discussion between the applicant and Dr. Bilal was scheduled to dispose of the application.
However, the subsequent processing again raised questions concerning the treatment of TTS service and the possibility of recovery of TTS salary, as suggested by some clerks of the Registrar Office. Instead of implementation of the Judgement of PHC/FCCP, they are trying to create another discrimination tool. Prof Munir K Khattak, Prof Abdur Rab, Prof Musawar Shah, Prof Naqeeb U Khan, Prof Iftikhar H Khalil and Prof Khalid Nawab are still in legal courts to get their legal pension rights.
At this stage, the issue should perhaps be viewed differently.
Once a matter has passed through the judicial process, the objective should not be to reopen the dispute through administrative interpretation, but to implement the applicable judgment faithfully and develop a policy mechanism that prevents similar disputes from recurring.
The real institutional test is therefore not simply whether a university can defend a decision in litigation.
It is whether the university can develop rules that make prolonged litigation unnecessary in the first place.
The Cost of Repeated Litigation
The TTS experience described by Prof. Qureshi also illustrates a wider problem faced by retired faculty members.
The document records several categories of disputes involving deductions, recovery of salaries, switch-back arrangements and post-TTS retirement benefits. It further notes that various retired TTS professors have approached the courts individually or jointly rather than having their cases resolved through a comprehensive institutional policy.
This raises a fundamental question of governance:
Should every retired TTS professor have to approach the courts individually to obtain clarification of retirement rights arising from the same institutional system?
If the answer is no, then the logical solution is a clear, transparent and comprehensive TTS policy for retirement and post-TTS benefits.
Learning from the University of Agriculture Faisalabad
The document identifies the University of Agriculture Faisalabad as an example where a TTS policy for retiring faculty members has been developed in the context of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 22 February 2016 in Civil Appeal No. 1214 of 2013.
The proposal emerging from the UAP TTS faculty is therefore straightforward: rather than resolving every case separately through litigation, UAP may consider developing or adopting a comprehensive TTS policy governing retirement, switch-back arrangements, pension, seniority, salary recovery and other related matters, consistent with applicable law and judicial decisions.
Such a policy would benefit not only retired professors but also the University itself.
It would reduce uncertainty for serving faculty, provide administrators with clear procedures, minimize repetitive litigation, and strengthen confidence in the University’s commitment to merit-based academic service.
Recognition of Merit Must End in Dignity
The deeper lesson of the TTS story is not about one professor or one pension claim.
It is about the relationship between merit, institutional governance and justice.
A university establishes a tenure-track system to recognize academic excellence and encourage faculty members to invest their abilities in teaching, research, innovation and institutional development.
When such faculty members retire, the recognition of their service should not end with uncertainty over their legitimate retirement benefits.
The journey should be:
Merit → Service → Recognition → Retirement with dignity.
Not:
Merit → Service → Dispute → Litigation → Retirement uncertainty.
The former strengthens an institution. The latter consumes institutional energy, public resources and the confidence of its academic community.
A Constructive Way Forward
The purpose of revisiting this history is therefore not to reopen personal grievances.
It is to draw an institutional lesson.
UAP may consider bringing together the relevant stakeholders—including serving and retired TTS faculty, the administration, legal experts and representatives of the University’s statutory bodies—to formulate a comprehensive TTS policy.
Such a policy could provide clear procedures for:
- appointment and continuation under TTS;
- switch-back from TTS to BPS where permitted by the applicable statutes;
- recognition of TTS service for pension and seniority;
- treatment of salary already drawn during TTS service;
- retirement and post-retirement benefits;
- prevention of unauthorized or disputed deductions;
- implementation of final judicial decisions; and
- mechanisms for resolving TTS-related grievances without prolonged litigation.
The objective should be simple:
No future TTS professor should have to spend years in litigation merely to understand or secure the retirement benefits attached to his or her lawful academic service.
From Victimization to Reform
Prof. Qureshi describes his experience as one of victimization arising from efforts that he believes were undertaken in the service of the University and the wider community.
Whether every aspect of that characterization is viewed in the same way by all stakeholders is ultimately a matter for the documentary and judicial record.
What can, however, be learned from the experience is much broader.
Institutions become stronger when criticism is converted into reform, disputes into policy, and individual grievances into systems that protect those who come later.
The conclusion of the judicial chapter therefore provides an opportunity to begin an institutional chapter.
The question is no longer simply:
“Who was right?”
The more constructive question is:
“What policy can ensure that the same dispute does not arise again?”
For the University, its faculty and its future generations of scholars, that may be the most valuable outcome of the entire TTS experience.
An appeal for institutional wisdom
The history recorded here is painful, but it need not remain merely a story of pain.
It can become a story of learning.
The recognition of academic merit should ultimately be accompanied by institutional fairness, transparent procedures and dignity in retirement. A comprehensive TTS policy, developed in accordance with the law and judicial decisions, could transform years of individual disputes into a framework of certainty for future faculty members.
That would convert a difficult chapter into a constructive legacy.
The purpose of justice is not merely to close an old case. It is also to help prevent the next one.