MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had challenged the denial of an invalidation grant from the Benevolent Fund. The petitioner, a retired teacher, sought the grant on medical grounds, specifically citing hypertension. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction in refusing to interfere with the administrative decision of the Benevolent Fund Board, which had determined that the petitioner's medical condition did not qualify for the grant. The Supreme Court held that the determination of the petitioner's eligibility involved a question of fact already decided by the competent Tribunal in accordance with established procedure and rules. Consequently, the High Court was justified in declining to grant relief under its constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed that where no substantial question of law requiring interpretation is involved, the Court will not interfere with factual findings made by administrative bodies, thereby dismissing the petition and declining leave to appeal.
- Can the High Court interfere with a factual determination made by an administrative tribunal regarding eligibility for a Benevolent Fund grant under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution when no question of law is involved?
- Article 199, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the order passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Writ Petition No,19443 of 1999 instituted by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that petitioner joined Education Department as a Matric J.V. Teacher on 1-5-1959 and served the department in various schools. The petitioner retired from service on 1-10-1990 on medical ground. The grievance of the petitioner is that he applied to the respondent department for grant of invalidation grant of Benevolent Fund. Secretary, Benevolent Fund Boards, Lahore Division turned down the request of the petitioner, vide order dated 12th July, 1994. He filed Writ Petition No,21876 of 1997 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 10-3-1998. An application for its restoration was filed but the same was also dismissed on 27-5-1998 for non-prosecution. Likewise application for restoration of the application was dismissed on 6-5-1999. Subsequently the petitioner filed Writ Petition No 10927 of 1999, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 8-7-1999. Application seeking restoration was dismissed for non-prosecution on 13th September, 1999. Ultimately the petitioner filed Writ Petition No,19443 of 1999, which has been dismissed by means of impugned order. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel stated that petitioner had suffered from disease of hypertension during period of his service, therefore, he was entitled for the grant of Benevolent Fund.
4. We are not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the reason that the Secretary, Benevolent Fund Boards, Lahore vide letter dated 12th July, 1994 informed that the Tribunal examined the case of the petitioner and held that the disease/disability on the basis of which Benevolent Fund is claimed cannot be granted to him. Since question of fact has been decided by the Tribunal in the light of procedure/rules, therefore, the High Court was right in declining to grant relief to the petitioner in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Since no question of law requiring interpretation by this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is involved and the High Court has rightly decided the case, therefore, we see no force in this petition which is dismissed and leave declined.