| Case ID |
1789570e-df5b-4027-823d-aec957c3381c |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Writ Petition No. 14886 of 2017 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 24, 2018 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court declared the Department's refusal to appoint Muhammad Siddique under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 as illegal, mala fide, and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights. The court emphasized that the disappearance of Siddique's father while in service should be legally presumed as death for the purposes of extending the benefits of Rule 17-A, irrespective of whether the death was natural or due to other causes. The court further stated that the Department's contention regarding the non-regularization or invalidation of the father's service was unfounded, especially given that a family pension had already been granted. Consequently, the Lahore High Court directed the Department to issue the appointment order to the petitioner immediately, thereby allowing the constitutional petition in the circumstances presented. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BHAKAR AND OTHERS, adjudicated by the Lahore High Court on April 24, 2018, the petitioner sought appointment under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The core of the dispute revolved around the disappearance of Siddique's father, a civil servant who went missing in 1997 while performing his duties and was subsequently presumed dead under Article 124 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Despite the family's consistent efforts and the issuance of a family pension, the Department declined Siddique's appointment request, citing that his father's services were neither regularized nor his death was declared valid for the purposes of Rule 17-A.
The petitioner, represented by advocate Zohaib Imran Sh., contended that the Department's refusal was baseless and violated his fundamental rights. Citing pivotal cases such as State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Faisal Tahir and others (2011 CLC 1959 rel.), the court reinforced the presumption of death after seven years of disappearance, aligning it with the Evidence Act's Section 108. Furthermore, the Lahore High Court highlighted the remedial nature of Rule 17-A, emphasizing its intent to alleviate the hardships of dependents of deceased or incapacitated civil servants, regardless of the nature of death—be it natural or civil.
The court critiqued the Department's reliance on an administrative order that incorrectly labeled Siddique's father as 'retired' instead of 'dead,' deeming this mislabeling as irrelevant given the circumstances of disappearance. The judgment underscored that the fundamental purpose of Rule 17-A is to provide employment opportunities to the dependents of civil servants who are no longer in service due to death or incapacitation, thereby rejecting any narrow interpretation that limits its applicability based on the manner of death.
Ultimately, the Lahore High Court ordered the Department to issue the appointment under Rule 17-A without further delay, thereby granting relief to the petitioner and affirming the legal protections afforded to the families of missing civil servants. This decision not only reinforces the procedural safeguards for civil servants' dependents but also clarifies the judicial stance on the presumption of death in cases of prolonged disappearance, ensuring that the legislative intent of providing for dependents is upheld. The case serves as a critical reference point for future litigations involving the rights of dependents under employment and service rules, highlighting the court's role in safeguarding administrative justice and human rights within the civil service framework. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Lahore High Court,
Department,
State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan,
Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974,
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN
|
| Lawyers |
Zohaib Imran Sh.
|
| Petitioners |
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE
|
| Respondents |
DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BHAKAR AND OTHERS
|
| Citations |
2019 SLD 1409,
2019 PLC 582
|
| Other Citations |
State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Faisal Tahir and 3 others 2011 CLC 1959 rel.,
Crawford rel.,
Punjab and others v. Natha and others (AIR 1931 Lahore 582),
Muhammad Sarwar and another v. Fazal Ahmad and another (PLD 1987 Supreme Court 1)
|
| Laws Involved |
Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974,
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
|
| Sections |
R.17A,
124
|