2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Mst. JAMILA BEGUM Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and 2 others
| Citation | 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | Mst. JAMILA BEGUM Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and 2 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Mst. JAMILA BEGUM Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Sandhu for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi PLD 1969 SC 407 ref. Muhammad Akram Javaid for Appellant. Muhammad Aslam Sandhu for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th September, 2001. The admitted facts of this case are that Ghulam Sarwar, the late husband of the petitioner was an employee of the respondents Railways and he died on 1-5-1972, that family pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner grant from the benevolent fund was also sanctioned vide letter dated 12-7-1972 but was never paid to her this grant was made for life or till her remarriage. Her grievance is that this grant has not been paid to her. Comments were called and the position taken by the respondents in the comments is that the benevolent fund grant was sanctioned but pursuant to amendment in the Rules it was limited only upto 30-6-1984. Further position taken up was that the said grant has been paid to the petitioner upto 31-12-1980.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to letter dated 12-7-1972 (Annexure A) the grant, was sanctioned till life or till remarriage and since his client had not remarried she is entitled to be paid the grant during her life time. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, refers to Rule 3(1)(e)(i) of the Pakistan Railway Servant Benevolent Fund (Disbursements) Rules, 1969 to urge that the grant in question is to lapse on 30-6-1984.
3. I have given some thought to the respective contentions of the learned counsel. Notwithstanding the said Rules, which were framed in the year 1969 it is an admitted fact that the benevolent fund grant was sanctioned vide letter dated 12-7-1972 (Annexure. A) and it was for lifetime or remarriage. There is no dispute that the petitioners widow has riot remarried. To my mind, the case squarely falls within the four corners of the law declared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi (PLD 9691 SC 407). The sanction was accorded and stood acted upon and the respondents department cannot be permitted to resile from the same. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the said sanctioned benevolent fund grant as admissible to the petitioner with effect from 31-12-1980. No orders as to costs. J-61 /L Petition allowed.