2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.

Precisely the facts of the case are that Muhammad Khalid Khan who was serving in Punjab Police as Constable embraced Shahadat on 22nd of November, 2005 while performing his duties and left behind a widow and one son aged about nine years. Per force of Shaheed Policy the present petitioner who is brother of Muhammad Khalid Khan (Shaheed employee) submitted his application for appointment. In this respect the concerned authorities summoned the widow of the deceased employee and obtained her statement in writing to the effect that she had no objection if the present petitioner was appointed pursuant to Shaheed Policy. After going through different tests the Capital City Police Officer, Lahore vide Memorandum No.16820/E&T-VI dated 18.04.2014 referred the petitioner for his medical test, but afterward vide letter No.8684/Ad-II dated 05.06.2014, it was concluded that Shaheed Claim Policy does not allow recruitment of a brother of Shaheed official in the presence of his child. Hence, this writ petition.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is otherwise fully qualified for appointment; he has successfully gone through the requisite formalities, necessary documents including an affidavit of the widow has been submitted before the authorities, therefore, a legitimate right of expectancy has accrued in his favour. Lastly, argued that some other similarly placed persons have already accommodation, therefore, petitioner cannot be discriminated.

3. The learned Law Officer on the other hand has opposed this petition on the ground that according to the settled Shaheed Policy, in the presence of child of the Shaheed Employee, brother of said employee cannot be appointed, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim appointment as a matter of right.

4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.

5. For ready reference, relevant extract from Shaheed Policy (Officer Letter No.1668-78/SE II/VIII dated 10.04.2003) is reproduced hereunder:- "According to Shaheed Policy, one of the unemployed children of a Police Officer (if he is married or one of his brothers if he is unmarried) who lays down his life in a Police encounter may be provided a job according to his eligibility by the appointing authority if the child or brother of the Shaheed Police Officer is otherwise fit for the post." Keeping the above reproduced policy in mind, there is no dispute that Khalid Khan deceased brother of the petitioner had embraced Shahadat, as is admitted by the respondent/department itself. Furthermore, it has been admitted by the petitioner himself that Khalid Khan deceased left behind one child and a widow. In view of these admitted facts, no ambiguity is left to hold that in terms of the Shaheed Policy, when Khalid Khan deceased (Shaheed Employee) is survived by one son, the petitioner being brother of said Shaheed Employee cannot be said to be covered by the said policy.

6. Apart from the above, although it is matter of record that widow of Khalid Khan (Shaheed Employee) has sworn an affidavit to the effect that she has no objection on adjustment of the petitioner, but I am afraid said affidavit does not have the overriding effect against the settled Shaheed Policy and merely on the basis of consenting statement by the widow the pith and substance of the policy will not change.

7. Some references have been quoted by learned counsel for the petitioner to argue that certain other similarly placed persons, who were brothers of the Shaheed Employees, were accommodated. It may be true, but I am afraid one wrong cannot be taken as precedent to repeat it and thus the petitioner cannot be allowed to lay his foundation, on totally a wrong premises and on the same ground no legitimate right of expectancy can be said to have accrued in favour of the petitioner to claim appointment as a matter of right.

8. For what has been discussed above, the instant writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed accordingly.

9. Before parting with this judgment, it has been observed that after amendment, Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, now reads as under:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in any rule to the contrary whenever a civil servant dies while in service or is declared invalidated/in-capacitated for further service, one of his unemployed children [or his widow/wife] may be employed by the Appointing Authority against a post to be filled under rules 16 and 17 for which he/she possesses. The prescribed qualifications and experience and such [or the widow/wife] may be given 10 additional marks in the aggregate by the Public Service Commission or by the appropriate Selection Board or Committee, provided he/she otherwise qualifies in the test examination and/or interview for posts in BS-6 and above:" [emphasis has been supplied] Provided further that one child [or widow/wife] of a Government servant who dies while in service or is declared invalidated/ incapacitated for further service shall be provided a job against posts in BS-1 to 5 in the department in which the deceased Government servant was working, without observance of formalities prescribed under the rules/procedure provided such child is [or the widow/wife] otherwise eligible for the post.] From the above reproduced rule, especially the phrases which have been emphasized, it becomes clear that the legislature by reevaluating the present scenario wherein even the women are in service field working shoulder to shoulder with men, therefore, the ultimate eventualities like death, invalidation/in-capacitation or Shahadat can be meted out to women as well, inserted those words to bring Rule 17-A, ibid, in line with current service structure. But, it appears that Shahadat Policy, as it exists today, is not in consonance with Rule 17-A, ibid and it only deal with son/brother of Shaheed Employee, but the widow has been ignored. In this view of the matter, office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore for reconsidering the Shaheed Policy to bring it in consonance with Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. ZC/M-118/L Petition dismissed.