From Resistance to Implementation: A Case Study in Institutional Reform
The prolonged pension dispute following my retirement from the University of Agriculture Peshawar on 20 March 2019 provides a practical example of how institutional resistance to policy reform can continue even after the underlying issue has been examined by administrative authorities and the courts.
Following the dismissal of CPLA No. 606-P/2019 filed by the University of Agriculture Peshawar before the Honourable Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan, and the consequent continuation of the judgment of the Honourable Peshawar High Court in WP No. 5127-P/2018, an application for implementation was submitted to the Vice Chancellor on 28 September 2026. The application also referred to the University’s position before the Honourable Peshawar High Court on 16 September 2026.
The application requested early settlement of the pension liabilities that had remained unresolved since retirement, including:
-
payment of the outstanding encashment and remaining 60% commutation;
-
restoration of the Last Pay Certificate dated 23 October 2019, protecting the BPS/TTS service period from 2 February 2016 to 19 March 2019;
-
withdrawal/refund of the pension contribution deduction of Rs. 1,602,964; and
-
recalculation of pension in accordance with the applicable rules and the resulting service record.
The application placed these requests in the context of the relevant judicial record, including the Peshawar High Court judgment in WP No. 5127-P/2018, the judgment in WP No. 5120-P/2017, the Supreme Court judgment concerning WP No. 2089-P/2017, the Supreme Court order in Civil Appeal No. 1214 of 2013 and the subsequent TTS pension policy issued by the University of Agriculture Faisalabad, as well as the Supreme Court judgment concerning timely finalization of pensionary and retirement benefits.
A copy of the application was also forwarded to the Director, Human Rights Cell, Peshawar High Court, in continuation of the complaint/representation that had ultimately resulted in proceedings before the Honourable Court under COC.99-P/2026.
A change in institutional response
The subsequent response of the Vice Chancellor, Prof. Dr. Sarzamin Khan, marked an important change in the character of the institutional response.
Having previously served as my PhD student and subsequently as a junior colleague in the Faculty of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences, the Vice Chancellor was familiar with the academic and professional context of the matter. He expressed appreciation for the patience demonstrated during the prolonged period of unresolved correspondence and proceedings and questioned why such matters had remained difficult to resolve within the University’s administrative structure.
Importantly, the response moved the matter away from further adversarial correspondence and towards implementation.
The Vice Chancellor directed the Registrar, Dr. Salam, to process the case and avoid further hardship to the applicant. He also agreed, during discussion of the matter, that the case should be examined for implementation of the judgment of the Peshawar High Court as maintained through the subsequent constitutional-court proceedings. The matter was accordingly discussed with Dr. Bilal, Deputy Registrar, for further processing.
This development is significant not merely because it concerns one retired Professor. It demonstrates how institutional reform can occur when leadership changes the administrative question from:
“How can the claim be resisted?”
to:
“How can the applicable judgment, rules and service record be implemented correctly?”
Lessons for policy reform
The case illustrates several characteristics of institutional resistance to reform.
First, an administrative position can become unnecessarily prolonged when an institution treats an employee’s legitimate claim primarily as a matter of defending an earlier administrative decision rather than objectively reviewing the underlying rules and judicial directions.
Second, prolonged litigation does not necessarily resolve the administrative problem unless the responsible institution subsequently develops an effective mechanism for implementation.
Third, resistance may impose costs on both sides. The individual bears prolonged financial and professional uncertainty, while the institution consumes administrative, legal and judicial resources defending decisions that may ultimately require reconsideration.
Fourth, leadership can substantially alter this trajectory. Once institutional leadership recognizes that the appropriate objective is lawful implementation rather than continuation of an adversarial administrative cycle, a dispute can move towards resolution.
The episode therefore provides a useful micro-level example of the broader principle underlying the Dairy Science Park approach to policy reform:
Sustainable reform requires institutions to convert rules, evidence and judicial decisions into practical implementation rather than allowing administrative resistance to become a substitute for governance.
The objective is not to weaken institutions, but to strengthen them through accountability, learning and timely correction.
In this sense, the transition from prolonged resistance to implementation represents a constructive conclusion to the case. It demonstrates that institutional reform does not necessarily require confrontation. It can emerge through evidence, law, persistence, dialogue and, ultimately, responsible leadership.
For Dairy Science Park, this experience reinforces the wider concept of Triple Helix Good Governance: academia, government and industry should not function as competing silos. Their relationships should be based on evidence, mutual respect, accountability and a shared commitment to solving problems.
The same principle applies within universities and public institutions themselves. Good governance is achieved when institutional authority is used not merely to defend previous decisions, but to learn from evidence, respect lawful directions and deliver timely solutions to citizens and employees.