| Case ID |
4672cc1a-e75e-4317-842d-855a02a4fd4c |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Miscellaneous Appeal No.01 of 2017 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 18, 2020 |
| Hearing Date |
Sep 07, 2020 |
| Decision |
The High Court ruled that the service benefits of a deceased employee are subject to the principles of inheritance under Islamic law and should be distributed among the legal heirs. The case revolved around whether the benefits, such as the General Provident Fund, were part of the 'Tarka' or inheritance. The court held that such benefits should be treated as part of 'Tarka', thus necessitating their distribution among the legal heirs instead of solely to the nominee. The court directed the respondent to approach a competent civil court to ascertain his relationship with the deceased and to claim any entitled benefits based on the outcome of the civil suit. |
| Summary |
This case highlights the complexities surrounding the distribution of service benefits following the death of an employee, particularly under Islamic law and the specific regulations governing such benefits. The appellant, HESCO, contested the claim made by Muhammad Tanveer, who alleged to be the brother of the deceased employee, Mst. Farzana Shaheen. The court's decision emphasized that benefits such as the General Provident Fund should be classified as 'Tarka', thereby mandating that they be distributed among all legal heirs rather than being given exclusively to the appointed nominee. This ruling underscores the importance of correctly identifying legal heirs in succession cases, as well as the need for transparency in documentation concerning familial relationships. The outcome of this case serves as a critical precedent for similar disputes regarding service benefits and inheritance, illustrating the balance between employer discretion and legal entitlements under Islamic inheritance laws. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench
|
| Entities Involved |
HYDERABAD ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY (HESCO)
|
| Judges |
Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
|
| Lawyers |
Muhammad Arshad S. Pathan,
Allah Bachayo Soomro
|
| Petitioners |
HYDERABAD ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY (HESCO)
|
| Respondents |
3 others,
MUHAMMAD TANVEER
|
| Citations |
2021 SLD 2880,
2021 PLC 1510
|
| Other Citations |
Federal Government v. Public at Large PLD 1991 SC 731,
Messrs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Mst. Alia Siddiqa and 3 others 2001 MLD 1,
Naseem Akhtar alias Lali v. Khuda Bux Pechoho and others 2006 CLC 1589,
Mst. Fauzia Noureen v. Muhammad Asghar 2010 CLC 219,
In re: Mst. Shamim Akhtar and other's case PLD 1994 Kar. 237,
Muhammad Mumtaz v. Umra Bevi 1999 PLC (C.S) 793,
Mst. Ameeran Khatoon v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar 2005 SCMR 512,
Fatima Bi v. Mehnar Gul 1999 YLR 759,
Zahoor Mehdi Faisal v. Additional District Judge 2006 YLR 3236,
Rukia v. Ghulam Shah PLD 1994 Pesh. 1
|
| Laws Involved |
Not available
|
| Sections |
Not available
|