Who is eligible to take of family pension in Pakistan, Complete guide in the light of High Court decision.
فیصلہ سرکاری ملازمین کے ورثاء میں کون کون پینشن لے سکتا۔ ملازمین کے حقوق کے تعین کے حوالے سے ایک اہم قانونی رہنمائی فراہم کرتا ہے۔
📜 کیس کی تفصیل:
⚖️ ہائی کورٹ کے اہم قانونی نکات:
🟨 2. فیملی پینشن کا حق دار کون ہے؟
🟧 3. وزیرِ اعظم امدادی پیکج کا دائرہ:
🟦 4. ہم آہنگ فیصلوں (Concurrent Findings) میں مداخلت:
🟥 5. رِٹ آف سیریٹوری (Writ of Certiorari) کا دائرہ:
🟫 6. نتیجہ:
🧾 حوالہ جات:
🟢 نتیجہ و تجزیہ:
Exactly wording of the Court
2025 P L C (C.S.) 492
[Islamabad High Court]
Before Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, J
Hafiz MUHAMMAD YAQOOB
Versus
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Federal Education and Professional Training, Government of Pakistan and 7 others
Writ Petition No.4163 of 2021, decided on 7th June, 2023.
(a) Employment---
----Deceased employee---Family pension---Tarka---Entitlement---Father of the deceased employee assailed concurrent findings whereby the widow of the deceased was held entitled for financial benefits---Validity---Term "Tarka" is the grant / benefit which an employee shall be entitled to / can claim during his lifetime / period of service; and the non-tarka are the benefits which have not accrued to the employee while he was alive or in service but accrue or become payable to him after his demise/service, for which nominated legal heirs of employee become entitled after his death---Pension Rules, 2018, while dealing with the matter of Gratuity and Family Pension, provide that same will be given to the wife or wives, in case of a male Government servant ; husband, in case of a female Government servant; children of the Government servant; widow or widows and children of a deceased son of the Government servant; and similarly family pension is also liable to be paid to widow of the deceased Government servant---Petitioner (father of the deceased Government employee) had failed to make any submissions on the point as to how the concurrent orders passed by both the Courts below were not in consonance with law or were without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction---Constitutional petition, filed by father of the deceased Government employee, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Federal Government of Pakistan v. Public at Large PLD 1991 SC 731; Mst. Rabia Qavi v. Mst. Hina Qavi Khan PLD 2020 Sindh 263; Muhammad Javed and another v. Mst. Roshan Jahan and 2 others PLD 2019 Sindh 1; Sher Ali v. Director General Pakistan Rangers PLD 2019 Lah. 474 and In the matter of: Succession of the Assets, Securities, Properties and Accounts of Late Javed Iqbal Ghaznavi PLD 2010 Kar. 153 ref.
(b) Employment---
----Deceased employee---Prime Minister Assistance Package---Family Pension---Tarka---Scope---Father of the deceased employee assailed concurrent findings whereby the widow of the deceased was held entitled for financial benefits---Prime Minister Assistance Package provided that pension, accommodation, employment, education, health, plot of land, house building advance etc. of the employee who died in service were to be paid to the spouse or children as defined in the said package, but father of the deceased employee was not held entitled to receive the amount which did not fall within the definition of tarka---Fund and grants announced by the employer to be paid after the death of an employee during service to compensate the untimely death of the employee, was the prerogative and discretion of the employer, which could nominate the person from his family to receive such compensation Petitioner (father of the deceased Government employee) had failed to make any submissions on the point as to how the concurrent orders passed by both the Courts below were not in consonance with law or were without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction---Constitutional petition, filed by father of the deceased Government employee, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Federal Government of Pakistan v. Public at Large PLD 1991 SC 731 and Mst. Parveen Khalid v. Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Islamabad through Executive Director and 4 others 2021 YLR Note 109 ref.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Concurrent findings, associating of---Scope---In case of concurrent findings of the Courts below, scope of the constitutional petition becomes very limited---Concurrent findings can only be interfered with when the orders of the Courts below are fanciful or based on misreading or non-reading of the evidence.
Syed Arif Ali Sabri v. Abdul Samad through L.Rs. and 2 others 2008 YLR 2309; Sadruddin v. Aslam Madad Ali and others PLD 2008 Kar. 2005 and Khuda Baksh v. Muhammad Sharif and another 1974 SCMR 279 ref.
(d) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Art. 199---Writ of certiorari , issuing of---Scope---High Court, while issuing a writ of certiorari, acts in supervisory, and not appellate jurisdiction---High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction will not review the findings of facts reached by the inferior Court or a tribunal.
Amjad Khan v. Muhammad Irshad (Deceased) through LRs 2020 SCMR 2155; President All Pakistan Women Association, Peshawar Cantt v. Muhammad Akbar Awan and others 2020 SCMR 260; Jurist Foundation through Chairman v. Federal Government through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others PLD 2020 SC 1; Chief Executive MEPCO and others v. Muhammad Fazil and others 2019 SCMR 919; Chairman, NAB v. Muhammad Usman and others PLD 2018 SC 28 and Shajar Islam v. Muhammad Siddique and 2 others PLD 2007 SC 45 ref.
Sahibzada Saad ul Amin for Petitioner.
Mst. Bibi Tahira for Respondent No.3, in person.
Malik Muhammad Iqbal Kallue, Assistant Attorney General.
Dr. Agha Ghulam Haider, Deputy Director (legal), Ministry of FE and PT.
No comments:
Post a Comment