Service benefits

Petitioners / civil servants were aggrieved of the fact that they were not given health allowance which was being given to devolved employees in same department

Appeals filed by petitioners/civil servants were dismissed by Service Tribunal

Validity

Petitioners/civil servants were not in the category of devolved employees who became employees of the Province by virtue of 18th Amendment to the Constitution

Petitioners/civil servants were employees of the Province since the beginning, whereas benefit of allowance was only extended to devolved employees who were covered under section 2 (b) of Career Structure for Health Personnel Scheme Ordinance, 2011

No such law or rule was ever promulgated by Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for extending same benefits to originally employed persons to be treated alike

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Service Tribunal

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Any service benefit that an employee is legally entitled to claim from his employer in his lifetime, or has become due and payable to him in his lifetime but has remained unpaid for any reason, shall be treated as his absolute right and thus shall form part of his tarkah and shall be inheritable, according to the personal law of the deceased employee, by all his legal heirs according to their respective shares

Whereas, a service benefit, that had not fallen due to the deceased employee in his lifetime, or is a kind of grant, donation, bounty, concession and/or compensation by the employer, the amount thereof payable after the death of the employee shall be distributed only to those members of his family who are entitled for the same as per the prevailing rules and regulations of service or under the relevant and applicable provision(s) of law

Discretion to make rules and regulations for payment of any grant, donation, bounty, concession or compensation to any particular member or class of members of the family of the deceased employee, vests solely with the employer, provided such rules and regulations must not be inconsistent with or contrary to Shariah or any law for the time being in force.

Benevolent fund does not fall within the definition of such property of a deceased employee that could be deemed to have been owned by him at the time of his death nor could he claim the same during his lifetime as a matter of right; such grant or donation is payable to the employee after his retirement from service or to his legal heirs upon his death

Forced deduction of certain amount from the salary of the employee as contribution/donation for such fund shall not change the above position as after contributing/donating the fund, such amount does not remain the property of the employee; thus, benevolent fund cannot be treated as tarkah

Said principle shall also apply to group insurance

Family pension and death gratuity, payable by the employer to the family members of its deceased employee as per the applicable service rules and regulations, are considered as grants/donations, and thus are not inheritable nor do they fall within the definition of tarkah.

Service benefit falling under any of the categories of grant, donation, bounty, concession or compensation, payable after the death of the employee, shall not form part of his tarkah

Only such beneficiary(ies) or nominee(s) shall be entitled to receive the same who were made beneficiary(ies) or nominee(s) under the prevailing rules and regulations of service or under the relevant and applicable provision(s) of law; and, other legal heir(s) of the deceased employee, not being beneficiary(ies) or nominee(s) of such service benefits, shall not be entitled to claim any share therein.

Service benefit falling under any of the categories of grant, donation, bounty, concession or compensation, payable after the death of the employee, shall not form part of his tarkah

Only such beneficiary(ies) or nominee(s) shall be entitled to receive the same who were made beneficiary(ies) or nominee(s) under the prevailing rules and regulations of service or under the relevant and applicable provision(s) of law; and, other legal heir(s) of the deceased employee, not being beneficiary(ies) or nominee(s) of such service benefits, shall not be entitled to claim any share therein.

Any service benefit that an employee is legally entitled to claim from his employer in his lifetime, or has become due and payable to him in his lifetime but has remained unpaid for any reason, shall be treated as his absolute right and thus shall form part of his tarkah and shall be inheritable, according to the personal law of the deceased employee, by all his legal heirs according to their respective shares

Whereas, a service benefit, that had not fallen due to the deceased employee in his lifetime, or is a kind of grant, donation, bounty, concession and/or compensation by the employer, the amount thereof payable after the death of the employee shall be distributed only to those members of his family who are entitled for the same as per the prevailing rules and regulations of service or under the relevant and applicable provision(s) of law

Discretion to make rules and regulations for payment of any grant, donation, bounty, concession or compensation to any particular member or class of members of the family of the deceased employee, vests solely with the employer, provided such rules and regulations must not be inconsistent with or contrary to Shariah or any law for the time being in force.

Benevolent fund does not fall within the definition of such property of a deceased employee that could be deemed to have been owned by him at the time of his death nor could he claim the same during his lifetime as a matter of right; such grant or donation is payable to the employee after his retirement from service or to his legal heirs upon his death

Forced deduction of certain amount from the salary of the employee as contribution/donation for such fund shall not change the above position as after contributing/donating the fund, such amount does not remain the property of the employee; thus, benevolent fund cannot be treated as tarkah

Said principle shall also apply to group insurance

Family pension and death gratuity, payable by the employer to the family members of its deceased employee as per the applicable service rules and regulations, are considered as grants/donations, and thus are not inheritable nor do they fall within the definition of tarkah.

Plaintiff was initially appointed as a Trainee Officer in the company, but later, he joined the Federal Government on deputation and subsequently the Government of Sindh; he then filed a Constitutional petition for permanent induction into the service of the Government of Sindh with all consequential benefits, which was allowed by the court

After the High Court's decision, the defendant company terminated the plaintiff's lien from service after keeping him on its active roll for 12 years on deputation

Plaintiff was not legally justified in claiming service benefits from the defendant company because the company's service rules had no provision for it

Additionally, the plaintiff resisted the order to report back to the defendant company and had already been permanently inducted into the service of the Government of Sindh with all related benefits

Decision of the High Court qualified the meaning of phrase 'finally decided' as used in S. 11 of the C.P.C

Plaintiff had previously challenged the order of reporting to his parent department without claiming any dues against the defendant company

Instead, he sought permanent induction in the Government of Sindh with reference to summary(ies) of the Chief Minister

However, after such a long period, he was not justified in claiming such relief

Plaint was rejected in circumstances.

Employer had the discretion to make rules and regulations in relation to any grant or concession that the employer intended to give an employee or after the employee's death to any member of his family.

Any service benefit which an employee could claim from his employer in his lifetime and the same became payable to him in his lifetime, but for any reason remained unpaid, then to such extent only it would become part of his estate and was inheritable by all his legal heirs according to their respective shares

However, a service benefit which had not fallen due to the deceased employee in his lifetime and was of a nature definable as a grant or concession on the part of the employer, then whatever amount that became payable after the death of employee was to be distributed only to those members of his family who were entitled for the same as per rules and regulations of service

Benefits such as gratuity, group insurance and family pension, being grants and concessions on the part of the employer, if payable to employee after his death could not be treated as inheritable by all heirs of the employee, but were to be distributed to those who were entitled to it under the rules and regulations of employment or under any law for the time being in force.

Appellant (Electricity Distribution Company) contented that all service of deceased employee available with it (appellant) did not form part of "Tarka" and they (benefits) were to be given to the Nominee and not to be distributed amongst the legal heirs of deceased

Held, that in the present case, group insurance, family pension and gratuity payable after the death of an employee, being a 'grant' or 'concession' on the part of employee, could not be treated as part of inheritance and were to be received by the person entitled to it under the service rules and regulations of the employer

Group Term/Life Insurance, Insurance against General Provident Fund, arrears of family pension, and arrears of Benevolent Grant were not part of "Tarka" as the same could not have been claimed by the deceased in her lifetime

Whereas deceased employee could have claimed the amount of General Provident Fund, salary of some days and pension commutation, at least when she was to retire, therefore, said categories of benefits available were part of "Tarka", hence were to be distributed amongst the legal heirs .

In case of service benefits which formed part of "Tarka", it was the responsibility of the nominee to collect such amount and to distribute the same amongst the legal heirs; and if the amount/asset was not part of "Tarka" then it must ordinarily go to the Nominee as otherwise it would defeat the purpose/intention of any such nomination.

Held, that General Provident Fund was to be treated as "Tarka" because the same could be claimed by a deceased employee from the employer at the stage of retirement or even before that

Amount of general Provident Fund was, thus, to be distributed amongst the legal heirs and not to be given to the nominee of the deceased.

Where an employee voluntarily accepted and received benefits under some arrangement with the employer out of his own free will then he could not turn around and seek benefits that were ordinarily applicable to other employees.

Where an employee voluntarily accepted and received benefits under some arrangement with the employer out of his own free will then he could not turn around and seek benefits that were ordinarily applicable to other employees.

Grievance of civil servant was that while posted as OSD, he was not paid extra benefits in shape of deputation allowance, POL charges and residential telephone facility charges

Appeal filed by civil servant was dismissed by Service Tribunal

Validity

No deputation allowance, POL charges and residential telephone facility charges were specified for the post of OSD

Such claim was made in oblivion of the fact that during his posting as OSD no official duty whatsoever was assigned to him and in absence whereof POL and residential telephone facility charges could not be paid as there was no purpose of such payment

Civil servant failed to furnish any reason on the basis of whereof such extra burden on Government exchequer could be justified, when no official duty was assigned to him

No legal right was available to civil servant to have claimed such benefits

Question of infringement of any vested right did not arise

Government employee appointed to a post or grade would be entitled to pay sanctioned for such post

Employee posted as OSD could only claim the sanctioned pay for the post and not other benefits which were not sanctioned for such post

No illegality or irregularity was pointed out by civil servant in the judgment passed by Service Tribunal

No question of law of public importance was involved in the matter

Service Tribunal had travelled in the straight furrow of detached and objective thinking and there was no deflection on account of personal bias or ill-will

Leave to appeal was refused.