JAMAT ALI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
ORDER
ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.--- Through this constitutional petition, the order dated 14.07.2016 passed by Additional Inspector General of Police/respondent No.3 and the notification dated 25.04.1989 issued by the Secretary Home Department, Govt. of the Punjab, Lahore have been challenged whereby the claim of the petitioner for compensation being the legal heir of Shaheed, namely, Muhammad Ishaq was denied.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this constitutional petition are that petitioner being the real father of Muhammad Ishaq (Shaheed), driver/constable No.8453 of Punjab Highway Patrolling Police, Faisalabad, claimed the share of compensation out of Rs.50 lacs given to respondent No.5 Shagufta Yasmin, widow of Muhammad Ishaq on the ground that besides him and respondent No.5, there were other legal heirs, namely, Tayyab Ishaq Ali Ishaq, Fatima Ishaq and Amna Ishaq sons and daughters who may also be included as the legal heirs of Shaheed including Sughran Bibi, his mother. The case of the petitioner is that despite the fact that succession certificate had already been issued on 02.06.2016 by Civil Judge, Faisalabad, in the name of legal heirs of Shaheed Muhammad Ishaq, they are being deprived of their share of the said compensation. The petitioner made an application before Additional Inspector General of Police/respondent No.3 who was pleased to dismiss it on 14.07.2016 on the ground that under para 6 of Award of Compensation Rules, 1989, only widow could claim the compensation of Shaheed to the exclusion of any other legal heir. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said policy has been reviewed w.e.f. 13.02.2017 but the claim of the petitioner being exactly in accordance with the Islamic law was to be granted as prayed for notwithstanding any policy to the contrary. Adds that as the compensation is the amount of Diyat which is to be payable to the legal heirs of deceased/shaheed. Places reliance upon case titled "Mst. Hussan Jamala and another v. Government of Khyber Pukhtunkhwa through Secretary, Home and Tribal Affairs, Peshawar" reported as PLD 2013 Peshawar 1, case titled "Mst. Sabra Begum and another v. Mst. Iffat Shafique and 2 others" reported as 2006 YLR 2678 and case titled "Mst. Ameer Khatoon v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others" reported as 2005 SCMR 512.
4. Conversely, learned law officer and the counsel for the private respondents submit that the death of Muhammad Ishaq (deceased) was dated 19.02.2016, therefore, the policy under Rule 4(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules promulgated on 13.02.2017 will not have its retrospective effect as it past and closed transaction. Places reliance upon case titled "Zaheer Abbas v. Pir Asif and 6 others" reported as 2011 CLC 1528, case titled "Federal Government of Pakistan v. Public at Large and others" reported as PLD 1991 SC 731 and also the definition of Family and prays for dismissal.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is noted that order dated 14.07.2016 challenged in the present writ petition was passed on the basis of direction issued by this court on 11.04.2017 passed in W.P.No.23344-2016 titled "Jamat Ali v. Inspector General of Police, Punjab and others". The impugned order specifically refers to para 6 of the Police (Award of Compensation) Rules, 1989, which is reproduced as under:-
"6(i). The case of death shall be supported by the death certificate and the following information:-
(a) Particulars of family members (widow/widows and children showing their ages, occupation and marital status.
(b) Where there is no widow or children; the particulars of parents of deceased police officers/officials and their ages.
(ii) In case of officer/official is incapacitated, a certificate of incapacitation shall be obtained from the medical board in the form prescribed in Annex. I-A. "
7. Under this rule a copy of death certificate and the particulars of the family members i.e. widow, widows and children with their ages, occupation and marital status, along with particulars of parents, their ages in case there is no widow or children are required to be furnished. However, under notification dated 10.04.2017 Rule 12 of Rules ibid, the amount of compensation was increased from Rs.3 lacs to Rs.5 lacs. Under note thereof, the proportionate share (of lump sum amount only) for dependent parents of Shaheed will be 1/4 in case of him being sole Male issue (if married). In case of multiple male siblings of Shaheed, the share will be 1/6 of the lump sum amount.
8. The succession certificate already, issued on 02.06.2016 issued in the name of Shagufta Yasmin (widow), Tayyab Ishaq, Fatima Ishaq, Ali Ishaq and Amna Ishaq (sons and daughters), Jamat Ali and Sughran Bibi (parents).
9. The case of the respondent is that the financial assistance is admissible under Rule 4(10) of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, which is reproduced as under:-
3. TO WHOM FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IS ADMISSIBLE.
In case of death of civil servant a financial assistance will be granted to family as explained in Rule 4(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules i.e.
(a) To wife or wives in the case of male civil servant.
(b) Husband in case of female civil servant.
(c) Children of the Civil Servant.
(d) Widow or widows and children of a deceased son of the civil servant.
(B) In case the Financial Assistant is not payable under para-A above it may be granted
(i) To father
(ii) Failing the father, to the mother.
(iii) Failing the father and mother, to the eldest surviving brother below the age of 21 years.
(iv) Failing 1 to 3 to the eldest surviving unmarried sister if the eldest sister married or dies then the next eldest.
(v) Failing 1 to 4 to the eldest surviving widowed sister."
10. Besides, under Rule 4(10) of the Punjab Civil Service Pension Rules, it is the widow and the children of the Shaheed who were entitled to all financial assistance.
11. The case of the petitioner is that since the policy has been changed, therefore, its benefits should be extended to the petitioner retrospectively. The judgment cited at bar by counsel for the petitioner case titled "Mst. Sabra Begum and another v. Mst. Iffat Shafique and 2 others", reported as 2006 YLR 2678 pertains to the benevolent fund which is apart of tarka. The other judgment titled "Mst. Ameer Khatoon v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others" reported as 2005 SCMR 512 is also related to benevolent fund and group insurance. The case titled "Mst. Hussan Jamala and another v. Government of Khyber Pukhtunkhwa through Secretary, Home and Tribal Affairs, Peshawar" reported as PLD 2013 Peshawar 1 pertains to the Shaheed package announced by the Government to the extent of awarding 60 salaries to the widow excluding the parents. This judgment is based on case titled "Federal Government of Pakistan v. Public at Large and others" reported as PLD 1991 SC 731, a Shariat Appellate Bench given by Full Bench, in which the following is held at page 748.
12. Scanning the above case law, it is apparent that compensation is related to the death/killing in the line of duty, therefore, the state has announced the compensation to be paid not as a diyat money but as a direct consequences of Shahadat to wife and children.
13. Keeping in view the above discussion, this writ petition has been found meritless and is therefore, dismissed on merits.
ZC/J-5/L Petition dismissed.