2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Mst. GUL HASEENA Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT, G.B. through Chief Secretary and 3 others
| Citation | 2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Sahib Khan, C.J. and Muhammad Alam, J |
| Parties | Mst. GUL HASEENA Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT, G.B. through Chief Secretary and 3 others |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil service, (b) Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil service, (b) Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Sahib Khan, C.J. and Muhammad Alam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Mst. GUL HASEENA Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT, G.B. through Chief Secretary and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naseem Akhtar, Faiz-ul-Wahid and Shehzad Iqbal for Petitioner.
- Assistant Advocate General for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th August, 2015.
Headnotes / Summary
Death of government employee during service
Departmental assistance package
Payment of
Scope
No material was on record that any amount was outstanding against the department as a part of any assistance package
Nothing was on record that any assistance package for legal heirs of deceased government employee was available at the time when deceased employee died
Legal representatives of the deceased government employee were not deprived of any right accrued to them in the year of death of civil servant
Writ petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Death of government employee during service
Appointment of any of the legal heirs of deceased in government employment
Scope
Petitioner was neither any legal heir of the deceased government employee who could be appointed in government service nor present writ petition was on behalf of any legal heir of the deceased government employee
Nothing was on record that any assistance package for legal heirs of deceased government employee was available at the time when deceased employee died
Legal representatives of the deceased government employee were not deprived of any right accrued to them at the relevant time
Writ petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.
This is a writ petition, whereby, petitioner has sought the following remedy:- "It is therefore, humbly prayed that by accepting this writ petition, order vides No.3 vide No.DSC-22/2006 dated 7th May 2014 passed by respondent No.3 may very graciously be declared as ab-initio void and against the fundamental rights of the petitioner being mother of the deceased. Further directions may kindly be passed to the respondents for early payment of restrained amounts of departmental assistance package Rs.300000/- restrained by respondent No.3 along with government job to the LRs of the deceased in the larger interest of justice. Any other relief as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper according to the nature of case may also be granted in favour of petitioner and against the respondents."
2. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the material available on file. Petitioner filed this petition, feeling aggrieved from order No.DSC-22/2006 dated 7th May, 2014. For ready reference, we reproduce the said order/ letter hereunder:- No.DSC-22/2006 Government of Pakistan Gilgit-Baltistan Secretariat Cabinet Wing Dated the 22nd April, 2009. To, The Deputy Accountant General Pakistan Revenue, Sub-Office, Gilgit. Subject: FINANCIAL SANCTION In exercise of the powers conferred upon him, vide Notification No.F.3(6)-NA-1 Islamabad dated 26th November 1999, I am directed to convey the sanction of the Chief Secretary GB, to the incurrence of an expenditure of Rs.8,00000/- (Rupees eight lac only) on account of financial assistance to the following deceased government servants of Cabinet Wing @ of Two hundred thousand rupees each:- S. No. Name of Deceased Desig. Legal Heir
1. Late Abdul Majeed Butt S.T./C.O. M. Afzal Butt (Brother) -2. Late Israr Ahmed Storekeeper. Abrar Ahmed (Brother)
3. Late Kaseer Ahmed LDC Muhammad Naseer (Father)
4. Late Muhammad Ayaz LDC Muhammad Hussain (Father) The expenditure involved will be met from within the sanctioned budget grant under the head 01-Chief Executive 019-Gen-Public service not elsewhere defined 0191-Gen. Public service not elsewhere defined 19120-Others sub-head A-03940-Unforseen Expenditure under demand No.84 for the year 2009-2010 of (Cabinet Wing). (Abdullah Khan) Deputy Secretary (Cabinet) Distribution:-
1. Casier Cabinet.
2. Office Copy. Sd/xxx (Abdullah Khan) Deputy Secretary (Cabinet)
3. From plain perusal of prayer part of the petition, it is evident that petitioner has prayed for payment of Rs.300,000/- as departmental assistant package for the government employees who died during service. Petitioner also prayed for government job to the L.Rs. of the deceased. As to the payment of amount of Rs.300,000/-, petitioner failed to show any document in proof that said amount is outstanding against the respondents as part of any assistant package as alleged in the petition. As to the prayer of the government job, petitioner neither cited any L.R. of the deceased government employee, who could be appointed in the government job nor the petition in hand is on behalf of any of the legal heirs of deceased government employee as petitioner herself is not a candidate for her appointment against any government job. Petitioner further failed to cite any law or copy of any assistance package, for the L.Rs. of deceased government employees, prevailed in the year 2005, when the deceased employee admittedly died, showing that the same provided for appointment of any of the L.Rs. of the deceased government employee in government job. Even we do not find any documentary proof to the effect that L.Rs. of the deceased government employee were deprived of any right accrued to them in the year 2005 because of death of the deceased government employee.
4. In the above circumstances, we found that the petition in hand is devoid of any ground nor the same is on behalf of any person fit to be appointed against any government job. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the petition is baseless and merits dismissal. Petition dismissed. File be consigned to record. ZC/138/GB Petition dismissed.