2015 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.

Muhammad Huzair Qureshi, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to District Coordination Officer, Multan, respondent No.2 to appoint him as Naib Qasid in terms of Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, contending that his father Abdul Rashid Qureshi was a Naib Qasid, who was retired from the Government Service on 22-1-2014 on the ground that he was not medically fit to continue the Government Service. The petitioner is a Matriculate and as such eligible for the post of Naib Qasid.

2. The comments were called for from the respondents. It was not denied that the petitioner being a Matriculate can be appointed as a Naib Qasid. However, a preliminary objection was raised to the maintainability of the writ petition. It was maintained by the respondents that since the invalidation of Abdul Rashid Qureshi, father of the petitioner did not fall in category "A", the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. In this respect, support was sought from the letter dated 11-9-2014 issued by the Government of Punjab, Services and General Administration Department (Regulation Wing).

3. In support of the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the contentions raised by him in the writ petition.

4. On the other hand, the learned Law Officer placed heavy reliance upon the aforementioned letter dated 11-9-2014 issued by the Government of Punjab to contend that Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servant (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 is inapplicable to the case of the petitioner.

5. From a perusal of the record annexed to the writ petition as well as the comments furnished by the respondents, it stands established that Abdul Rashid Qureshi, father of the petitioner was working as Naib Qasid in the Office of District Collector/District Coordination Officer, Multan. He was suffering from various diseases. He was examined by a Medical Board of Nishter Hospital, Multan, who issued an invalidation certificate dated 28-11-2013, which was duly countersigned by the Director General Health Services Punjab, Lahore. The aforesaid certificate was made the basis of his retirement from the government service at the age of 54.

6. As per the invalidation certificate "A" annexed to the writ petition, Abdul Rashid Qureshi was found to be suffering from "Diabetes Mellitus Ch. Brochial Asthma". However, his disability was placed in category "B". The question arises whether the petitioner being the son of an invalid Government employee can put forwards the claim for employment on the basis of Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be advantageous to reproduce Rule 17-A, which reads as under:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any rule to the contrary whenever a Civil Servant dies while in service or is declared invalidated/incapacitated for further service, anyone of his unemployed children, 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 child 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."

7. From a bare perusal of the afore-quoted rule, it is crystal clear that this rule does not make any distinction between an invalid of category "A" and an invalid of category "B" for entitling one of his children to government service. This rule simply says that when a Government Servant is declared invalid/incapacitated for further service, anyone of his unemployed children may be employed by the Appointing Authority against a post to be filled provided he possesses the prescribed qualification and experience. To my mind, the Government of the Punjab cannot be allowed to read into the relevant rule, which has not been provided for. If the Government so intends, it is that easy for it to change Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. As this rule stands, an unemployed offspring of a Government who is retired on the ground that he has become invalid/incapacitated and cannot carry on his duties, cannot be denied employment on the so-called distinction that the incapacity of his father fall in category "B". To put it simply, whether it is category "A" or category "B" disability/incapacity of a Government Servant, the overall effect and the end result would remain the same doors of further Government Service would stand closed to him.

8. I am of the considered opinion that Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 was designed to lessen the sufferings of an invalid, if anyone of his family takes over and steps in his shoes, his miseries would be considerably reduced. It goes without saying that the Rule in question is a kind of remedial enactment. Remedial acts have been defined by Crawford on Statutory Construction in the following words:

"Remedial acts are those enacted in order to improve and facilitate remedies already existing for the enforcement of rights and for the redress of wrongs or injuries as well as to correct defects, mistakes and omissions in a former law." To put a narrow consideration on such a remedial and beneficial legislation would defeat the very purpose of the enactment of Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. It is a familiar canon of statutory construction that remedial legislation should be construed broadly to effectuate its purposes.

9. In the case of "Jnan Ranjan Sengupta v. Arun Kumar Bose" (AIR 1975 SC 1994), it was held by the Supreme Court of India that the Court will not readily read in the provision, the words which are not there and which when so introduced will restrict the rights of persons for whose benefit the statute is intended.

10. In the case of "International Ore and Fertilizers (P) Ltd." (1987) 4 SCC 203" it was observed that in construing a remedial statute, it should be given the widest operation its language would permit. The court should construed the phraseology of the statute so as to give the most complete remedy intended by the statute and so that the purpose of the legislation may be allowed to be achieved rather than frustrated.

11. What I have gathered is that a post of Naib Qasid has fallen vacant in the Office of District Coordination Officer, Multan and the petitioner fulfills the prescribed criteria. Apparently, there is no hurdle in the way of his appointment. The stance adopted by the respondents to the contrary is unsound and untenable. Consequently, this petition is allowed, and respondent No.2 is directed to issue an employment letter to the petitioner, appointing him as Naib Qasid in his office in the place of his father, Abdul Rashid Qureshi. ZC/M-134/L Petition allowed.