Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: (MST.) ARIFA PARVEEN VS Respondent: MOHAMMAD AMIN PURI And Other
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Irshad Hasan Khan Title: (MST.) ARIFA PARVEEN vs MOHAMMAD AMIN PURI And Other Case No.: Writ Petition No. 2507 of 1989 Date of Judgment:1991-11-19 Reported As: K.L.R. 1993 Labour and Service Cases 233 Result: N/A
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.-This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 18.1.1989 passed by the learned District Judge, Lahore, whereby he dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.2.1987 of the trial Court granting succession certificate in favour of respondent No. 3. 2. The relevant facts are that Khalid Ameen Puri, husband of the petitioner herein, was an employee of the Directorate General of Registration, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan. He was posted as a Clerk in the District Registration Office, Lahore. After qualifying service of ten years, he died issueless on 20.10.1985 and left behind his widow. Certain amounts on account of Group Insurance, Provident Fund, Family Pension and Gratuity were payable to the deceased by the respondent/department for which respondent No. 3 moved an application for the grant of succession certificate before respondent No. 1. The certificate was accordingly issued in respect of all the aforesaid amounts by the trial Court vide order dated 12.2.1987. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the said order which was dismissed on 18.1.1989. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that under para 2(1) of the Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme, 1954, the petitioner being widow was entitled to the grant of family pension, gratuity and group insurance to the inclusion of all others including the petitioner. For facility of reference para 2(1) of the said Scheme is reproduced as under:-
---
## Page 2
"2(1) The 'Family' for the purpose of payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity will include the following relatives of the Government servant:- (a) wife or wives, in case of male Government servant; (b) husband, in the case of a female Government servant; (c) children of the Government servant; (d) widow or widows and children of a deceased son of the Government servant." 4. The controversy raised herein is settled by the Judgment of Shariat Appellate Bench in Urdu (PLD 1991 S.C. 371), wherein it was held that benevolent fund, insurance and gratuity are in the nature of Urdu and not heritable. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid Judgment, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of gratuity, family pension and group insurance to the exclusion of all others including the petitioner in the light of para 2(i) of the above Scheme but the rest of the amount as determined in succession certificate will be distributed to the heirs of the deceased according to Sharia. Rana Bashir Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, also frankly conceded that in the light of the aforesaid Judgment of the Supreme Court, the respondent No. 3 is not entitled to the payment of gratuity, family pension and group insurance. Consequently, the impugned orders are modified to the extent stated above and the writ petition is accepted with no orders as to costs.