Civil servant appeal against in pakistan. Deceased civil Servant meaning in urdu. legal heirs can party in the appeal filed by the ( dead )civil servant against his major penalty.

Deceased civil servant meaning

A "deceased civil servant" refers to a government employee or public servant who has passed away. The term encompasses individuals who were working in various civil service positions within government agencies or departments at the time of their death. When a civil servant dies, their estate and any related matters are typically handled according to legal and administrative procedures.

Deceased civil servant meaning in urdu.

ایک "متوفی سرکاری ملازم" سے مراد وہ سرکاری ملازم یا سرکاری ملازم ہے جس کا انتقال ہو گیا ہو۔ اس اصطلاح میں ان افراد کو شامل کیا گیا ہے جو اپنی موت کے وقت سرکاری اداروں یا محکموں میں سول سروس کے مختلف عہدوں پر کام کر رہے تھے۔ جب کوئی سرکاری ملازم مر جاتا ہے، تو اس کی جائیداد اور اس سے متعلقہ معاملات کو عام طور پر قانونی اور اس کے مطابق ہینڈل کیا جاتا ہے۔

Following case law hai service case ke hawale se
Marne wala civil servant tha or department ne us ko major penalty ki saza dete hoe us ki salary kam karne ka hukam dia tha.
Penalty ke khalaf marne wale ne appeal file ki.
Appeal Abhi pending thi ke civil servant ki death hu gai
Civil servant ke warsan ne Civil servant ke behalf per Appeal main party banne ke liye application di.
Department ka moqaf yeh tha ke warsan party nahi ban sakte.
Service tribunal ne dono parties ko sunne ke baad civil servant ke warsaan ko party banne ki ijazat de di
Jiss ke khalaf department ne appeal file ki Supreme Court me .
Or Supreme court ne qarar dia or warsan ko appeal main party banne ki ijazat de di.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Present:

Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik

Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah

Mr. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan

C.P.2717-L of 2015

(Against the order of Federal Service Tribunal

dated 14.09.2015, passed in MP No. 23/2015

in Appeal No. 99(L)CE/2004)

Regional Operation Chief, National Bank of Pakistan, Human

Resource Department, Regional Office, Sargodha, etc.

...….Petitioner(s)

Versus

Mst. Nusrat Perveen, etc.

…….Respondent(s)

For the petitioner(s):

Mr. M. Qamar-uz-Zaman, ASC.

For the respondent(s): N.R.

Research Assistance: Mr. Hasan Riaz, Civil Judge cum

Research Officer at SCRC.1

Date of hearing:

23.12.2020

ORDER

Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J.- We consider in this

petition whether the appeal filed by a civil servant in the Federal

Service Tribunal (“Tribunal”) would abate on his death or his legal

heirs could pursue the same.

Brief facts of the case are that decedent predecessor of

the respondents, Rana Ejaz Ahmad, while working as Officer

Grade-III was departmentally proceeded against by the petitioners

and was awarded major penalty of reduction to a lower stage of pay

by three steps. The decedent challenged the imposition of penalty

but died during the pendency of his appeal before the Tribunal.

Rejecting the objection of the petitioners that the claim of the

decedent did not survive after his death, the Tribunal allowed legal

heirs of the decedent to be impleaded as party in the appeal

1 Supreme Court Research Centre, SCP, Islamabad.

C.P.2717-L of 2015

pending before it. The petitioners have sought leave of this Court

under Article 212(3) of the Constitution to appeal against the order

of the Tribunal.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that an employment grievance does not survive the civil

servant’s death. No remedy, he argues, has been provided to the

legal heirs of a civil servant under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973

(“Act”) and, therefore, the respondents could not be permitted to

pursue the claim initiated by the decedent. The learned counsel

has resorted to two judgments of this Court i.e. Muhammad Nawaz

v Ministry of Finance (1991 SCMR 1192) and Muhammad Ashfaq v

Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue (PLD 2008 SC 703) to support

his argument. Additionally, he submits that in view of the

judgment delivered in Muhammad Tariq Badr v National Bank of

Pakistan (2013 SCMR 314), the Tribunal had limited jurisdiction

as regards the terms and conditions of the employees of the

petitioner bank which extinguished with the demise of the

decedent.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

at length and perused the judgments relied upon by him

minutely. The matter in issue relates to the survival of the right to

sue following the death of a civil servant. The appeal of the

decedent on a matter relating to some terms and conditions of

service at the time of his death was undoubtedly pending before

the Tribunal in accordance with the decision2 of this Court. The

only question begging determination is the survivability of the

claim of the decedent. It is seen that the Act or the rules3 framed

thereunder do not contain any reference to the question of

devolution of the right to sue in case a civil servant dies during the

pendency of service appeal nor do they provide for abatement of

appellate proceedings initiated by an aggrieved civil servant on his

death. Adverting to the case law developed on this subject, it is

apparently correct that the appeals filed by civil servants were held

by this Court to have abated with their death in the cases of

Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Ashfaq. However, these two

judgments were distinguished subsequently by a three Member

2 Muhammad Tariq Badr v National Bank of Pakistan 2013 SCMR 314.

3 The Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules 1974

C.P.2717-L of 2015

Bench of this Court in Chief Secretary Punjab v Ch. Iftikhar

Ahmad4. It was held therein that peculiar benefits to which the

legal heirs would become entitled would not allow the lis to abate

on the death of a civil servant. The writ petition of the husband of

the deceased ad hoc civil servant was entertained and the right of

late civil servant regarding the benefits of terms and conditions of

service was considered to have devolved on her husband.

It is significant to observe that service disputes are not

always attached merely with the person of a civil servant as an

individual but more often than not with some benefits which could

potentially be enjoyed by the successors of the civil servant in

accordance with law which are contingent on the adjudication of

the controversy. This consideration attracted the attention of this

Court in Federation of Pakistan v Syed Afzal Muhammad Farooq5

where the civil servant whose grievance related to the issue of

promotion had passed away during the pendency of appeal. It was

observed that his legal heirs had no cause of action to the extent of

promotion yet in the event of success of his claim, they would be

entitled to enhanced pensionary benefits. The Court did not

consider it appropriate to dilate upon the merits of the case in the

absence of legal heirs. The Federation of Pakistan was directed to

re-consider the case and if late civil servant was found to be

entitled to promotion, enhanced pensionary benefits be extended to

his legal heirs. Relying on the case of Syed Afzal Muhammad

Farooq, this Court in the case of Mehar Muhammad Nawaz v

Managing Director, Small Business Finance Corporation6 did not

entertain the objection that the right to sue did not survive

following the death of a civil servant. Legal representatives of the

deceased civil servant were held entitled to the pensionary benefits

admissible under the law.

In the case in hand also, the decedent in addition to

assailing penalty imposed on him was seeking payment of wages

which would have been due had he not been punished in

departmental proceedings. And, if the departmental decision is

overturned in appeal, the heirs of the decedent would at least

inherit back benefits which their predecessor would have got, had

he succeeded in appeal in his lifetime. It is noteworthy that the

heirs’ entitlement to service benefits may sometimes transcend

usual gains like pension, gratuity etc. For instance, in the province

of Punjab, the family of a civil servant who dies in service is

entitled to salary which the deceased civil servant was drawing,

along with annual increases, till the date of superannuation of the

deceased civil servant after which family pension is allowed as per

rules.7 Imagining a hypothetical situation in this backdrop, if the

claim of wrongful dismissal from service of a civil servant in Punjab

is allowed to abate without adjudication on his death, legitimate

expectancy of his family about substantial monetary benefits

would be prejudiced without any adjudication.

Although the Court in this case is seized of a matter

particularly governed by service law, the issue pertains to the

larger question of the survival of a claim emanating from an

employment dispute. This Court in Itrat Zahida v President ABL8

has held that the writ petition of an employee who has assailed the

decision of Labour Appellate Tribunal does not abate on his death

and his legal heirs have a right to continue the proceedings for a

decision on merit. Employment claims have been held to have

survived the death of the employee in different foreign

jurisdictions. It has been held that the cause of action in a claim

for overtime pay survives the death of the employees when

statutory law does not specifically refer to the question of survival

of actions9; a county employee’s claim for back pay survives his

death10; a claim for pecuniary compensation for discrimination

brought before the employment tribunal could survive the death of

the employee and it is immaterial that the discrimination Acts do

not expressly confer rights on a personal representative to pursue

a deceased’s claim for compensation for discrimination, rather, the

critical question is whether the discrimination Acts contain

7 Notification No. FD-SR-I/3-10/2004, Dated 15th August 2017, Finance

Department, Government of the Punjab, Serial No. 2.

8 2006 SCMR 1287.

9 Acebal v United States 60 Fed. Cl. 551.

10 Rendek v Sheriff of Bristol County 440 Mass. 1017.

C.P.2717-L of 2015

anything which takes away such rights11; a labour complaint will

not extinguish as the causes of action i.e. violations of law survive

the plaintiff’s death12; a claim that an employee was wrongfully

dismissed in violation of law survives the employee’s death13; “[t]he

death of the workman during pendency of the proceedings cannot

deprive the heirs or the legal representatives of their right to

continue the proceedings and claim the benefits as successors to

the deceased workman. . . . .”

14; and the right to get the benefits,

which would have been due to the deceased civil servant, would

devolve on his legal representative.15

The question whether after the death of the plaintiff or

the petitioner proceedings would abate would primarily depend on

the nature of cause of action16 and the relief claimed in the

peculiar facts of each case17. Service benefits may be enjoyed by

the successors of the deceased civil servant. Some of those are

inheritable which form part of the estate of the deceased while

others are grants to be distributed among his family members

according to law.18 The respondents in the instant petition would

receive some benefits in case they are able to vindicate their stand

before the Tribunal. Such a claim does not extinguish with the

death of civil servant. Letting the claim lapse on the basis of an

ultra textualist interpretation of the Act would be denying the heirs

the right to seek adjudication on merits. The Tribunal is deemed to

be a civil court for the purpose of deciding an appeal and has the

same powers as are vested in such court under the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).19 Rule 33 of Order XLI of CPC empowers

a Court of Appeal to pass any decree and make any order which

ought to have been passed or made and this power may be

11 Harris (suing as personal representative of Andrews (deceased) v Lewisham &

Guy’s Mental Health NHS Trust [2000] 3 All ER 769.

12 McFeeley v Jackson Street Entm't, LLC 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114767, 2014

WL 4182231.

13 Gasior v Mass. Gen. Hosp. 446 Mass. 645.

14 Rameshwar Manjhi v Managemenmt of Sangramgarh Colliery AIR 1994 SC

1176.

15 Sudha Shrivastava v Comptroller and Auditor General of India AIR 1996 SC

571.

16 Itrat (n 8).

17 Rameshwar (n 14).

18 The Government of Pakistan v General Public PLD 1991 SC 731; Zaheer Abbas

v Pir Asif 2011 CLC 1528; Dawa Khan v The Government of Pakistan 2015 PLC

(CS) 1255; Amtul Habib v Musarrat Parveen PLD 1974 SC 185.

19 The Service Tribunals Act 1973, s 5(2)

C.P.2717-L of 2015

exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties,

although such respondents or parties may not have filed any

appeal. In addition, Rule 1 of Order XXII CPC provides that the

death of a plaintiff or defendant shall not cause the suit to abate if

the right to sue survives. And, by virtue of Rule 11, provisions of

Rule 1 of Order XXII CPC have been made applicable to appeals.

The object of establishing Service Tribunals was to

take out the adjudication of disputes relating to the terms and

conditions of service of civil servants from the hands of tradition

bound civil courts and place it before specialized tribunals

exclusively dealing with the issue without being hamstrung by

intricate procedural rules of pleadings, trial, admissibility of the

evidence and proof of facts.20 In addition to reducing the burden of

regular civil courts, a very important purpose was to provide to the

civil servants expeditious adjudication in respect of their

grievances.21 Notwithstanding that CPC is not as a whole strictly

applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is

bound to follow the basic norms of justice.22 It has been observed

by this Court that the provisions of CPC may not stricto sensu

apply in proceedings under a special law yet its equitable

principles will always be applicable in order to do complete justice

between the parties and meet the ends of justice.23

10.

Not all legal rights terminate on death.24 A claim by a

civil servant for his promotion or better terms and conditions or for

reinstatement in service, is survivable claim and passes on in the

shape of pecuniary and pensionary benefits to his legal heirs. Such

a claim may arise under the service laws but also enjoys

constitutional underpinning. “The right to employment and to earn

a living free from undue molestation is a property right affecting

20 Vatchirikuru Village Panchayat v Deekshi Thulu Nori Venkatarama 1991 (2)

SCR 531; Government of Bangladesh v Sontosh Kumar Shaha 13 ADC (2016)

853.

21 A.K. Behra v Union of India (2011) 1 SCC (LS) 101; Asadullah Khan Tareen v

Government of Balochistan 2016 PLC (CS) 195.

22 Ali Khan Subanpoto v Federation of Pakistan 1997 SCMR 1590.

23 Sheikh Saleem v Shamim Atta Ullah Khan 2104 SCMR 1694 (The case arose

out of a rent matter).

24 Fred O. Smith, Jr., ‘The Constitution After Death’ (2020) 120 Colum. L. Rev.

1471, 1531; Kirsten Rabe Smolensky, ‘Rights of the Dead’ (2009) 37 Hofstra L.

Rev. 763, 764

C.P.2717-L of 2015

the estate of plaintiff. Such right does not abate upon his death.”25

Abatement of appeal on the death of the decedent would impinge

upon the property rights of the respondents. Also, shutting eyes to

their potential property rights would hurt their right to dignity.

“Human dignity is harmed when individuals and groups are

marginalized, ignored, or devalued. . . ”26

11.

Under our constitutional scheme, abatement of

proceedings on the death of a civil servant, in a case, where the

cause of action carries a survivable interest will unduly deprive the

decedent civil servant, as well as, his legal heirs of their

constitutional rights to livelihood, property, dignity and fair trial.

Fundamental right to life including right to livelihood ensures the

security of the terms and conditions of service;

27 fundamental right

to property ensures security of the pecuniary and pensionary

benefits attached to the service;

28 fundamental right to dignity

ensures that the reputation of the civil servant is not sullied or

discredited through wrongful dismissal, termination or reversion

etc;

29 and fundamental right to fair trial and due process, inter

alia, safeguards and protects the survivable interest and ensures

continuity of the legal proceedings even after the death of the civil

servant, equipping the legal heirs to purse the claim30.

Fundamental rights under the Constitution do not only protect and

safeguard a citizen but extend beyond his life and protect and

safeguard his survivable interests by being equally available to his

legal heirs. It is reiterated that other than pecuniary and

pensionary benefits that inure to the benefit of the legal heirs, the

right to restore one’s reputation is also a survivable right and flows

down to the legal heirs to pursue and take to its logical conclusion.

Any slur on the reputation of a civil servant impinges on his

human dignity and weighs equally on the dignity and honour of his

family.

12.

For the foregoing reasons, we take no exception to the

impugned order and are of the view that it does not warrant any

25 Bilanow v United States 159 Ct. Cl. 93.

26 Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1999] 1 SCR 497.

27 The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, art 9.

28 ibid arts 23 and 24.

29 ibid art 14.

30 ibid art 10 read with art 4

C.P.2717-L of 2015

interference. Leave is, therefore, declined and this petition is

dismissed.

Lahore,

23rd December, 2020.

Approved for reporting

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.