Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Mst. UBAIDA MANZOOR VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Education (Schools), LahoreHonorable Justice Rauf Ahmad SheikhQamar-uz-Zatnan Butt and Haji Tariq Aziz Khokhar,Aurangzeb
2012 P L C (C.S.) 101
[Lahore High Court]
Before Rauf Ahmad Sheikh, Syed Ejaz Hussain Shah and Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah, JJ
Mst. UBAIDA MANZOOR
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Education (Schools), Lahore and 4 others
Writ Petition No.4694 of 2010, heard on 23rd June, 2011.
(a) Words and phrases---
----'Child', meaning of
(b)Interpretation of statutes---
---While interpreting statute or rules made there under those were to be read by giving the words used by the legislature or rules making authority its ordinary, plain, simple and grammatical meanings---Meaning which could render any portion of the enactment ineffective, had to be avoided---Unambiguous language used in the principal or subordinate legislation, should not be construed in a manner to defeat its object---Addition or subtraction in the words used by the law makers, was not desirable while interpreting any statute or rules made there under as the assignment of different meanings could defeat the object for which the law was enacted---No doubt, the court had the inherent power to interpret the statute, but such power was to be exercised to discover the intent of the legislature without importing or borrowing words by unnecessarily applying the principle of reading in and reading out. Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah v. Mst. Saba Imtiaz and others PLD 2011 SC 260; Qaiser Javed Malik v. Pervaiz Hameed and 2 others 2009 SCMR 846 and Muhammad Ijaz-ul-Haq v. Executive District Officer and others 2006 SCMR 989 rel.
(c) Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974---
----R. 17-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 25---Constitutional petition---Married daughter of deceased civil servant---Eligibility for appointment in civil service---Petitioner had assailed the vires of letter dated 14-3-2005, providing therein that the married daughter of the deceased government servant, was not eligible for benefit of S.17-A of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 as married daughter became the liability of her husband after her marriage---Under R.17-A of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, benefit of appointment was to be extended to a child of a civil servant, who died during service or was rendered invalidated/incapacitated during service---No distinction was made in the said Rule between a son and a daughter married or unmarried child---Clear and unambiguous object of that provision was to give relief to the bereaved family, who had been deprived of the bread earner---Distinction on the basis of sex was violative of the fundamental right of equality of citizens as bestowed under Art.25 of the Constitution---Narrow interpretation depriving a married daughter of such civil servant of the benefit given under S.17-A of the Ordinance, did not appeal to the rational mind; as there could be an eventuality when the deceased would leave behind one married daughter and remaining minor children---If the daughter was not given the benefit, then the family could not get any relief which would be against the spirit of that benevolent provision of law which appeared to have been made for the welfare of the bereaved families of the civil servants---High Court declared that benefit of S.17-A of the Ordinance would be admissible to one unemployed child of a civil servant, who died or was rendered invalidated/incapacitated during service, irrespective of his/her marital status or sex. Nazia Naeem v. Executive District Officer (Education), Bahawalpur and another KLR 2009 L&S. Cases 153 and Miss Iffat Tahirah v. Secretary Schools and others 2010 PLC (C.S.) 1404 rel. Qamar-uz-Zatnan Butt and Haji Tariq Aziz Khokhar for Petitioner. Aurangzeb, Asstt. A.-G., Punjab for Respondents Nos.1 to 4. Abdus Salam Alvi for Respondent No.5. Date of hearing: 23rd June, 2011.
JUDGMENT
RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH J.--- In view of the conflicting judgments and divergent verdicts given in W.P.No.431 of 2005 decided at Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi and W.P.No.4322 of 2010 decided at Multan Bench, Multan, of this Court, his Lordship the Hon'ble Chief Justice was pleased to constitute a larger Bench to consider if a married daughter of a deceased civil servant, who dies while in service or is declared invalidated or incapacitated for future service is entitled to the benefit of Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 as added through Notification No.SOR-III-2-42/92 dated 28-8-1993.
2. Through the instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the vires of letter No.SOR-III (S&GAD)3-4/2004 dated 14-3-2005 on the subject, which was issued by Government of the Punjab, Services and General Administration Department, Section (R-III) pursuant to judgment passed in W.P.No.431 of 2005 at Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, of this Court, providing therein that the married daughters of the deceased Government servants are not eligible for the benefit under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 as married daughters become the liability . of their husbands after their marriage.
3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner Mst. Ubaida Manzoor was selected for the post of Elementary School Educator (BPS-9) on the basis of the recommendation made by the Selection Committee and was' accordingly appointed vide appointment letter dated 20-11-2009 issued by the competent authority. She is daughter of Mian Manzoor Ahmad, who died during service so she was awarded 10 additional marks under Rule 17-A of the Rules ibid. She was posted in Government Girls Primary School, Qadirabad Chak No.279/TDA, Layyah and has been performing the duties since then. Mst. Shazia Saleem respondent No.5 preferred an appeal on the basis of letter dated 14-3-2005 of the S&GAD, Government of the Punjab, issued in view of judgment of this Court passed in W P. No.431 of 2005 to the Chairman, Recruitment/ Selection Committee, District Layyah and the DEO (W-EE) referred the matter to the EDO(E), Layyah, for probing into the matter on the basis of the contents of the application. It was contended that the said notification was illegal and ultra vires of the Act and the Rules framed there-under as under the Rules of Business, the amendment in the Rules could be promulgated only under the orders of the Rules Making Authority. She asserted that the action initiated by the District Coordination Officer/Chairman, Recruitment Committee Education Department, Layyah, in respect of appointment order dated 20-11-2009 was illegal, ultra vires, without lawful jurisdiction and without lawful authority as Additional Secretary is the Chairman of the Cell established for Redressal of the Complaints under the Contract Policy, 2004. She contended that she was selected on merits and was entitled to 10 additional marks under Rule 17-A (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 and that merit list could not have been changed by withdrawing the same. It is urged that any instructions by the S&GAD in this regard is against the Rules so same is without force and has no effect. 4. In order to resolve the controversy, the relevant Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, is reproduced hereunder:---
"17-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in any rule to the contrary, whenever a Civil Servant dies while in service or is declared invalidated/incapacitated for ' further service, any one of his unemployed children, may be employed by the Appointing Authority against a post to be filled under rules 16 and 17 for which he/she possesses the prescribed qualifications and experience and such child may be given 10 additional marks in the aggregate by the Public Service Commission or by the appropriate Selection Board or Committee, provided he/she otherwise qualifies in the test/examination and/or interview for posts in BS-6 and above: Provided further that one child of a Government servant who dies while in service or is declared invalidated/incapacitated for further service shall be provided a job against posts in BS-1 to 5 in the department in which the deceased Government servant was working, without observance of formalities prescribed under the rules/procedure. Provided such child is otherwise eligible for the post."
It is obvious that under the said Rule, one unemployed 'child' of the deceased or invalidated/incapacitated civil servant is given the benefit. The word 'child' has not been defined in the Rules so the ordinary / dictionary meanings are to be adopted, while interpreting these rules. According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Eleventh Revised Edition Edited by Catherine Soanes Angus Stevenson) 'child' means a 'son' or 'daughter'. While interpreting the statute or Rules made there-under, it is to be read by giving the words used by the Legislature or Rules Making Authority its ordinary, plain, simple and grammatical meanings. The meaning, which may render any portion of it, ineffective has to be avoided as the same would be against the settled principles of 1 interpretation of statutes. The unambiguous language used in the principal or subordinate legislations should not be construed in a manner to defeat its object. Addition or subtraction in the words used by the Law Makers is not considered desirable while interpreting any statute or Rules made there-under as the assignment of different meanings may defeat the object for which the law is enacted. No doubt the Courts have the inherent powers to interpret the statutes but this power is to be exercised to discover the intent of the Legislature, without importing or borrowing words by unnecessarily applying the principle of reading in 1 and reading down. In this respect reliance is placed on Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah v. Mst. Saba Imtiaz and others (PLD 2011 SC 260), Qaiser Javed Malik v. Pervaiz Hameed. and 2 others (2009 SCMR 846) and Muhammad Ijaz-ul-Haq v. Executive District Officer and others (2006 SCMR 989).
5. Under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, the benefit is to be extended to a child of a civil servant, who dies during service or is rendered invalidated/incapacitated during service. No distinction is made in the said Rule between a son and a daughter. Again, there is no distinction between the married or unmarried son/daughter the clear and unambiguous object of this provision is to give relief to the bereaved family, who has been deprived of the bread earner. Discrimination on the basis of sex is violative to the fundamental right of equality of citizens as bestowed under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Even otherwise the narrower interpretation depriving a married daughter of such civil servant of the benefit given under Rule 17-A of the Rules ibid does not appeal to the rational mind as there may be an eventuality when the deceased leaves behind one married daughter and remaining minor children. If the daughter is not given the benefit then the family may not get any relief, which would be against the spirit of this benevolent provision of law, which appears to c have been made for welfare of the bereaved families of the civil servants.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.5 that Mst. Ubaida Manzoor is dependent on her husband so she is not entitled to the benefit under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, is without force because it is a matter of common knowledge that the daughters' are more considerate towards their brothers and sisters after demise of either of the parents. Except the judgment passed at the Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, the constant view of this Court at different Benches had been that the married daughter of deceased or invalidated/incapacitated civil servant is entitled to the benefit under Rule 17-A of the Rules ibid. In this respect, the judgments reported as Nazia Naeem v. Executive District Officer (Education), Bahawalpur and another (KLR 2009 L&S. Cases 153) and Miss Iffat Tahirah v. Secretary Schools and others (2010 PLC (C.S.) 1404) are referred to in addition to the judgment passed in W.P. No.4322 of 2010, This wider interpretation appears to in consonance with the object of the said Rule and in conformity with the intent of Law Makers.
7. Learned A.A.-G. has stated that the Government of the Punjab vide Notification No.SOR-III(S&GAD)2-10/2007-P dated 6-7-2010 has already clarified that the benefit under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, is admissible to the child irrespective of the marital status. This notification supersedes the impugned notification and reflects the true spirit of C Rule 17-A of the Rules ibid.
8. For the reasons supra, the writ petition is accepted and it is declared that the benefit under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, would be admissible to one unemployed child of a civil servant, who dies or is rendered invalidated/incapacitated during service irrespective of his/her marital status or sex. The impugned action, initiated by respondents Nos.2 to 4 is without lawful foundation and ineffective qua the rights of the present petitioner. H.B.T./U-13/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.