Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2003 P L C (C

2003 P L C (C.S.) 1218

[Lahore High Court]

Before Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J

Mst. JAMILA BEGUM

Versus

THE GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and 2 others

Writ Petition No. 13458 of 1998, heard on 19th September, 2001.

Pakistan Railway Servants Benevolent Fund (Disbursements) Rules, 1969---

----R.3(1)(e)(i)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition-- Grant from the benevolent fund---Petitioner had contended that after the death of her husband on 1-5-1972 who was an employee of the respondents Pakistan Railways, grant from the benevolent fund had been sanctioned to her for her lifetime or till her re-marriage but it had not been paid to her despite the fact that she had not been remarried---Petitioner had sought direction for the respondent that she be paid the grant of benevolent fund for her lifetime---Validity---Admittedly the benevolent fund grant had been sanctioned vide letter dated 12-7-1972 and was for lifetime or till the remarriage of the petitioner---Fact that the petitioner had not remarried was not disputed---Sanction had been accorded and was acted upon and the respondent-Department could not be permitted to resile from the same---High Court allowed the writ petition and the respondent-Department was directed to pay the sanctioned benevolent fund grant as admissible to the petitioner.

Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi PLD 1969 SC 407 ref.

Muhammad Akram Javaid for Appellant.

Muhammad Aslam Sandhu for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 19th September, 2001.

JUDGMENT

The admitted facts of this case are that Ghulam Sarwar, the late husband of the petitioner was an employee of the respondents Railways and he died on 1-5-1972, that family pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner grant from the benevolent fund was also sanctioned vide letter dated 12-7-1972 but was never paid to her this grant was made for life or till her remarriage. Her grievance is that this grant has not been paid to her. Comments were called and the position taken by the respondents in the comments is that the benevolent fund grant was sanctioned but pursuant to amendment in the Rules it was limited only upto 30-6-1984. Further position taken up was that the said grant has been paid to the petitioner upto 31-12-1980.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to letter dated 12-7-1972 (Annexure A) the grant, was sanctioned till life or till remarriage and since his client had not remarried she is entitled to be paid the grant during her life time. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, refers to Rule 3(1)(e)(i) of the Pakistan Railway Servant Benevolent Fund (Disbursements) Rules, 1969 to urge that the grant in question is to lapse on 30-6-1984.

3. I have given some thought to the respective contentions of the learned counsel. Notwithstanding the said Rules, which were framed in the year 1969 it is an admitted fact that the benevolent fund grant was sanctioned vide letter dated 12-7-1972 (Annexure. A) and it was for lifetime or remarriage. There is no dispute that the petitioners widow has riot remarried. To my mind, the case squarely falls within the four corners of the law declared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi (PLD 9691 SC 407). The sanction was accorded and stood acted upon and the respondents department cannot be permitted to resile from the same. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the said sanctioned benevolent fund grant as admissible to the petitioner with effect from 31-12-1980. No orders as to costs.

J-61 /L Petition allowed.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Lahore High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant