ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) ruled on Wednesday that the administrative staff of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Police were not entitled to risk allowance. The judgment was issued by a two member bench headed by Justice Aamer Farooq and including Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah. In its ruling, the bench set aside an April 10, 2025 order of the Peshawar High Court’s Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza), Swat, which had granted the administrative/ ministerial staff of police the benefit. The judgment, authored by Justice Farooq, stated that there was a clear distinction between “uniformed police personnel” performing active operational duties involving risks and hazards and administrative/ministerial staff working in the same department under the KP Police Act, 2017, as well as the KP Police Department Ministerial Service Rules, 1974. The question before the FCC was whether the respondents qualified as police officials entitled to the allowance under the relevant laws or whether a distinction existed between uniformed police personnel and administrative/ministerial staff. The respondents, who were employees of the KP Police establishment, claimed entitlement to risk allowance on the grounds that it was being paid to other employees and staff of the department and that denying them the benefit amounted to discriminatory treatment in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality. After the police department denied the grant of the allowance, the respondents challenged the decision before the PHC, which allowed their petition. In its judgment, the FCC observed that administrative/ministerial staff had their own set of rules governing their terms and conditions of service. Under the relevant rules, the FCC stated, such employees had their own method of recruitment, eligibility and composition of service. “Nowhere was it provided that a person appointed as ministerial staff under the rules will be expected to perform active police service”, the judgment said. It added that it was a settled constitutional principle that the guarantee of equality did not mean that all persons must invariably be treated alike, irrespective of the nature of their duties, responsibilities, classifications or conditions of service. The court observed that while Article 25 of the Constitution prohibited discrimination, it did not prevent reasonable classification based on “intelligible differentia having a rational nexus to the object”. “In the case at hand, there exists a clear distinction between uniformed police personnel performing active and operational duties and employees forming part of ministerial establishment,” the court noted, adding that the former may be required to perform duties involving physical danger, law and order operations, arrests, raids, security assignments, crime control and other functions associated with active policing, whereas the latter performed administrative, clerical and ministerial functions. The fact that both the categories were administratively associated with the police department did not obliterate material distinction in the nature of their duties, the judgment said, further stating that the “allowance, which was sanctioned on account of nature, character and hazards of a particular duty, cannot automatically be claimed by every employee serving in the same department”. “The high court appears to have proceeded primarily on the fact that both categories of employees are serving in the police department,” the FCC noted. “Such an approach did not adequately address the material distinction in their relevant service functions,” the judgment said. The FCC observed that the respondents had essentially sought parity on the basis of departmental affiliation. “Such a claim cannot succeed unless basis requirement of similarity of duties and service conditions is established,” the FCC emphasised. “The constitutional prohibition against discrimination does not require the state to treat the dissimilar classes although they are identical.” The judgment concluded that the high court “fell into error” in allowing the writ petition merely on the basis of alleged discrimination without examining whether the respondents were similarly placed with the employees who were being paid the risk allowance and whether the classification made by the government had a rational basis. Dismissing the plea, the FCC observed that the denial of the allowance to the respondents did not constitute hostile discrimination or offend constitutional guarantees of equality.