2022 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.

The appellant, aggrieved of the order dated 18.04.2019 passed by the District Judge Mastung (trial court) in Succession Application No. 207 of 2018, whereby the application filed by respondent Shabana Khuda Bakhsh for grant of succession in respect of pension of her late husband lying in National Bank of Pakistan Civil Secretariat Branch Quetta, where he was serving as Section Officer was allowed and succession certificate was directed to be issued in her (respondent No.l's) favour.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.l namely Shabana Khuda Bakhsh filed an application under Section 372 of the Succession Act, 1925 for grant of succession certificate against the general public with the averment that the respondent No.1 Mst. Shabana Khuda Bakhsh is widow of late Khuda Bakhsh, who was doing his job as Section Officer in Civil Secretariat Quetta and after qualifying service he was retired from job and drawing his monthly pension from National Bank of Pakistan Civil Secretariat Branch vide Account No. 4002284162. The said deceased passed away on 09.06.2018 due to natural death at Mastung. The respondent No.1 is widow of late Khuda Bakhsh and she was dependant on her deceased husband. After death of her husband she wanted to obtain succession certificate to the extent of monthly pension of her deceased husband and lastly she prayed that the monthly pension i.e. 84,8840/- may kindly be granted in her favour.

3. Notice and general publication were issued against the general public. No one appeared to contest the application, hence ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the general public. The applicant/respondent No.1 produced two witnesses and also submitted her affidavit. The petitioner who is son of the deceased Khuda Bakhsh has filed an application under Section 372 of the Succession Act, 1925 in respect of amount lying in the account of the deceased. Thereafter the trial court issued notice to petitioner and daughter of late Khuda Bakhsh, who filed rejoinder to the application.

4. The trial court after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties accepted the application of the applicant/respondent No.1 on 18.04.2019, hence the instant appeal.

5. The prime question that needs to be determined is whether the subject financial heads as referred above formed assets of the deceased at the time of his sad demise. In the case of Federal Government v. Public at Large reported in PLD 1991 SC 731 the Shariat Appellate Bench gave detailed findings and reasoning as to those funds which were due during lifetime of the deceased and the funds which could not have been claimed during his lifetime. The District Judge while considering all these financial heads within the same definition discarded the claim of the appellant and granted succession certificate in favour of the widow of deceased. The Shariat Appellate Bench in the aforesaid judgment defined most of the heads as not assets of the deceased. Such funds include benevolent fund, group insurance, gratuity, pension payable to the family as it is payable after the sad demise to the family members.

6. There is no dispute between the parties in respect of their relationship with the deceased. Also none of the parties denies each other's status as legal heirs of the deceased. The appellant did not deny the respondent's status as widow of the deceased. The amount mentioned in the schedule of succession application are neither denied nor disputed. The appellant also did not claim the said pension amount. The controversy between the parties is that according to appellant, the respondent was not dependant upon the deceased and she is a government servant and also drawing salary. Be that as it may, for the purpose of distribution of pension of the deceased government servant, Rule 4.10 of the West Pakistan Civil Servant Pension Rules, 1963 provides as follows: "4.10(a) Family for the purpose of payment of family pension shall be as defined in sub-rule (1) of Rule 4.7. It shall also include the Government servant relatives mentioned in clause (d) of Rule 4.8. (2)(A) A family pension sanctioned under this section shall be allowed as under:-- (i)(a) To the widow of the deceased, if the deceased is a male Government servant, or to the husband, if the deceased is a female Government servant." In view of the above reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as West Pakistan Civil Servant Pension Rules, 1963 the respondent No.1 was dependent upon her deceased husband (deceased) Khuda Bakhsh, who was a government servant and she was entitled for the pension amount. As such the trial court has not committed any illegality or irregularity to warrant interference by this court. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. MH/194/Bal. Appeal dismissed.