Gratuity Case laws | Gratuity meaning in Urdu | How Gratuity will be distribute in family. What all legal heirs are entitled of gratuity?
 |
| Distribution of gratuity |
Gratuity meaning in Urdu.
گریجویٹی سے مراد عام طور پر کسی کو تعریفی نشان یا پیش کردہ خدمات کے انعام کے طور پر دی جانے والی رقم ہے۔ ملازمت کے مخصوص تناظر میں، "گریچویٹی" کچھ آجروں کی طرف سے اپنے ملازمین کو فراہم کردہ ریٹائرمنٹ فائدہ کا حوالہ بھی دے سکتی ہے۔ اسے عام طور پر گریچوٹی ادائیگی یا محض "گریچوٹی" کے نام سے جانا جاتا ہے۔ ملازمت کی شرائط میں، گریچیوٹی اکثر ایک آجر کی طرف سے کسی ملازم کو ان کی خدمت کے لیے شکر گزاری کے طور پر دی جانے والی یکمشت رقم ہوتی ہے، خاص طور پر ریٹائرمنٹ کے بعد۔ گریچیوٹی کی ادائیگی کے لیے قواعد اور اہلیت کے معیار ممالک کے درمیان مختلف ہو سکتے ہیں اور یہ مقامی لیبر قوانین کے تابع ہو سکتے ہیں۔ اگر آپ کے پاس کسی خاص سیاق و سباق میں گریجویٹی کے بارے میں کوئی خاص سوال ہے تو بلا جھجھک اضافی تفصیلات فراہم کریں۔
Gratuity generally refers to a sum of money given to someone as a token of appreciation or a reward for services rendered. In a specific employment context, "gratuity" may also refer to a retirement benefit provided by some employers to their employees. This is commonly known as a gratuity payment or simply "gratuity."
In employment terms, gratuity is often a lump sum amount given by an employer to an employee as a form of gratitude for their service, especially upon retirement. The rules and eligibility criteria for gratuity payments can vary between countries and may be subject to local labor laws. If you have a more specific question about gratuity in a particular context, feel free to provide additional details.
Bht sare log samjhte hain ke gratuity ya pension aik tarka hai jiss main warasan tamam haqdar hain hisa lene ke?
Yeh baat blkl ghalat hai tarka wo jaidad hoti hai ju marne wala malik tha marte waqat kisi property ka or wo qanooni warsaan main taqseem hu gi
Lakin pension ya gratuity wo raqam hoti hai ya iss ke sath benevolent fund etc ju ke department apne mulazam ko ya us ke marne ke baad us ki family ko compensation karne ke liye di jati hai
Ju ke qatai toor per tarqa nahi hai or na hi tamam warsaan main taqseem hu gi
- Taqseem process of gratuity and benevolent funds etc ,
- taqseem hun ge un logo main jinn ko nominate kia gia.
- Ya department ki policy ke mutabaq jese wo rules and regulations banate hain
Haqdaran of gratuity
- Family of deceased
- Bewa
- Sons under 21 years.
- Daughters who are unmarried
- Parents of deceased.
Lahore High court Judgment
Stereo HCJDA 38
Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT,
MULTAN BENCH MULTAN
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Case No.W.P.No.4167 of 2012
Shabaz Wali Khan, etc. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan Establishment Division
Regional Board Federal Employees
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing
28.01.2019
Petitioners by
Mr. Kashif Nadeem, Advocate
Respondent by
Ms. Fouzia Kausar, Assistant Attorney
General for Pakistan
Mian Abdul Basit, Advocate for
respondent No.3.
Asim Hafeez, J. Through this petition, the petitioners -
being the legal heirs of deceased Wali Khan - has impugned the
orders / letters dated 24.12.2010, 09.05.2011 and 27.10.2011,
whereby alleged claims – being alleged entitlement of the deceased
- regarding payments of Gratuity, Federal Employees Benevolent
Fund, Group Insurance Fund and House Rent Allowance (“Claims”)
were denied, being not payable in view of the applicable rules and
regulations. The petitioners, aggrieved of the refusal to pay abovenoted claims, filed instant petition.
2.
In essence, the petitioners seek a declaration that the
above noted claims shall be declared and treated as ‘Tarka’ being
W.P.No.4167 of 2012
2
part of the estate of deceased and ordered to be paid accordingly.
Whether such claims are heritable – as Tarka – is the sole question
involved in this petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that claims raised but refused may be treated and
construed as ‘Tarka’ in view of the law laid down in “Mst. Ameeran
Khatoon v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others(2005 SCMR 512), MIRZA
MUHAMMAD AMIN ETC V. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN” (PLD 1982
FSC 143), “MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ V. Mst. UMRA BEVI” (1999 CLC
806), “Mst. RIFFAT YASMEEN V. HASSAN DIN AND ANOTHER” (2014
CLC 126).
3.
The facts of the case are straightforward. Petitioner’s
father joined Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (‘PAEC’) on
20.06.1978, who exercised option of grant of Leave Preparatory to
Retirement (LPR) w.e.f. 10.11.2009 to 09.11.2010, before his
retirement, due on 10.11.2010. Petitioners’ father died on
28.12.2009, during (LPR), leaving behind two sons, - over the age of
21 years - and four married daughters.
4.
The respondents No.2 & 3 submitted report and para-wise
comments, wherein entitlement was denied on the premise that
neither said claim can be construed as ‘Tarka’ nor payable in view of
applicable rules and regulations. It transpired from the report and
para-wise comments that following payments were paid by
respondent No.2, after the death of petitioner’s father, in discharge
W.P.No.4167W.P.No.4167 of 2012
3
of its liability. The petitioners have not disclosed factum of these
payments in the petition. Details of the payments made are as
under;
i. Compensation grant (death package) amounting to
Rs.800,000/- vide PAEC Islamabad O.M. No.Estt-VI-26 (119)
2011 (compensation) dated 18-01.2011.
ii. Group term Insurance claim amounting to Rs.360,000/- vide
PAEC, Islamabad. O.M.No.GPF-24276, dated 18.05.2011.
iii. Final payment of GPF amounting to Rs.283,426/- vide PAEC,
Islamabad O.M. No.GPF-24236, dated 2.2.2011.
5.
In order to appreciate the controversy, it is expedient to
highlight the objections raised by the respondents No.2 & 3 qua
alleged claim, which objections, raised in para-wise comments, are
reproduced hereunder as;
a) As regards the case of FEBF & G.I claims; it does not relate
to the answering respondents as its final payment was to be
made by the respondent No.1. However, request of the
petitioners with respect to the said dues was forwarded to the
concerned division government of Pakistan but the same was
regretted vide letter dated 09.05.2011.
b) So far as the case of House Rent Allowance is concerned,
it needs to be examined in the light of compensation package
made applicable for the employees of NCA w.e.f. 01.07.2005
and accommodation allocation rules, 2002 (AAR-2002), which
were applicable to the employees of PAEC at the time of death
of the father of the petitioners Basically the said compensation
package was introduced to provide assistance and shelter to
the widow and minor children of the deceased employee. A
combined perusal of the aforesaid package and AAR-2002
makes it clear that eh petitioners, being major adults and
independent, do not fall within the definition of “family” of the
employee as defined in rule 2(f) of AAR-2002 and, as such, are
not entitled to the House Rent Allowance. Rule 2(f) of AAR-
2002 is as under:-
“family” means spouse, legitimate children and step
children of a Government servant residing with him and
wholly dependent upon him and includes his parents, real of 2012
4
unmarried sisters and minor brothers, if residing with him
and dependent upon him;
Rule-3(j) of the NCA, AAR-2010, made applicable for the
employees of NCA w.e.f.30.04.2012, also contains the
same definition of the family of an employee.
c. For the purpose of pension & gratuity, PAEC is following the
rules of the Federal government according to which the sons of
the deceased employees who have attained the age of 21 years
and the married daughters shall not be entitled to the pension
and gratuity. Vide relevant extracts of the rules on the subject.
d) In case a civil servant dies, or is declared permanently
incapacitated for further service by a Medical Board, while in
service, a lump sum-payment equal to leave pay upto 180 days
out of the leave at his credit will be made to his ‘family’ as defined
for the purpose of family pension or as the case may be, to the
civil servant. It is evident that the sons of the deceased
employees who have attained the age of 21 years and the
married daughters have not been included in the definition of
‘family’ under the pension rules.”
6.
Respondent No.1 also filed para-wise comments, wherein
claims of Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance were rejected in
view of the provisions of Federal Employees Benevolent Funds and
Group Insurance Act-II of 1969 (“Act of 1969”), particularly section
2(5) of Act of 1969, wherein the expression family was defined. The
precise submission was that claim of Benevolent Fund and Group
Insurance could not be treated as heritable – Tarka - in view of
judgment reported as “Federal Government of Pakistan v. Public-AtLarge” (PLD 1991 SC 731).
7.
Arguments heard. Available record perused.
8.
The claims raised are primarily denied on two-counts,
which are;
W.P.No.4167 of 2012
5
i.
being contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1969
and the Rules and Regulations applicable qua the
case of the petitioner’s father.
ii.
The claims raised were not heritable – Tarka - Hence,
not to be paid to the legal heirs as part of estate of
the deceased.
9.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance and
repeatedly referred to Mst. Ameeran Khatoon’s case (supra), it is
therefore, apt to review the same. In Mst. Ameeran Khatoon’s case,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has relied upon the reasoning / ratio of
the law laid down in case reported as “Federal Government of
Pakistan v. Public-At-Large” (PLD 1991 SC 731), wherein Benevolent
Fund and Group Insurance, in terms of the provisions of Act of 1969,
were not declared and treated as ‘Tarka’. No reasoning / ground was
discussed or elucidated in Mst. Ameeran Khatoon’s case, to support
the decision taken, rather the ratio / reasoning in the case of
“Federal Government of Pakistan v. Public-At-Large” (supra) was
referred and relied upon. In view of the above, most respectfully, it
is observed that no law has been enunciated in Mst. Ameeran
Khatoon’s case, supra, having binding effect in terms of Article 189
of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. Reference
is made to the judgments reported as “MUHAMMAD TARIQ BADAR
and another v. NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and others” (2013
SCMR 314) and “KHAN GUL KHAN and others v. DARAZ KHAN” (2010
SCMR 539). A similar issue came up for hearing in case; In Re:
W.P.No.4167 of 2012
6
Succession of the Assets Securities, Properties and Accounts of late
Javed Iqbal Ghaznavi (PLD 2010 Karachi 153), wherein it was held as:
8.
In the case reported in PLD 1991 Supreme
Court 731 the five member’s bench of the Shariat
Appellate Court while discussing entitlement of
benevolent fund held that had the employee
reached his age of superannuation and thereafter
died, nothing would have become payable from
the Benevolent Fund and therefore such a benefit
which does not translate into a debt of the
deceased employee against the employer cannot
form part of the estate of the deceased so as to
become distributable among all his heirs.
9.
In the case repotted in 2005 SCMR 512 the
Division Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court
while recognizing the principle laid down by the
five member bench of the Shariat Appellate
Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Federal
Government of Pakistan v. Public at-large
reported in PLD 1991 Supreme Court 731,
mistakenly interpreted it conversely which
appears to be typographical error as service
benefits granted towards Benevolent Fund or
Group Insurance were not treated as heritable
benefits in terms of the principle laid down in PLD
1991 Supreme Court 731.
……………………..
12. Thus any financial benefit which an
employee can claim from his employer in his
lifetime and have also become payable in his
lifetime is to be treated as an absolute right of the
employee and if any benefit or any part of it
remains unpaid during his lifetime when the
same becomes heritable and is to be distributed
amongst all his heirs. However, a service benefit,
which has not fallen due to an employee in the
lifetime of an employee and being a grant or
concession on the part of the employer, then
whatever amount that become payable after the
death of the employee is to be distributed only to
those members of his family who are entitled for
the same as per the rules and regulations of
service. It is the discretion of the employer to
W.P.No.4167 of 2012
7
make rules and regulations in relation to any
grant or concession that is intended to give an
employee or after his death to any member of his
family.
13. Thus benefits such as special retirement
benefits, special compensation group insurance
under term insurance policy and group insurance
under provident fund policy benefits definable as
grant and concession on the part of employee
and payable after the death of the employee
cannot be treated as heritable by all heirs of the
employee but are to be distributed to those who
are entitled to it under the rules and regulations
of service provided by the employer……..
10.
In terms of the law laid down in Federal Government of
Pakistan v. Public-At-Large (PLD 1991 SC 731, it is clear that only such
benefits are inheritable that become receivable by the deceased
during his lifetime, i.e. payable to employee before his death. And
such service benefit, as given by an employer as grant /
compensation, in lieu of death of an employee and made payable to
a nominee or family – as defined under the relevant rules and
regulations – such grant or compensation, by its very nature, is not
heritable and cannot be treated as Tarka – estate of the deceased.
In these circumstances, Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance
cannot be treated as heritable, being a specie of grant /
compensation accrued after the death of an employee. The denial
of claim regarding Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance is in
accordance with the law.
W.P.No.W.P.No.4167 of 2012
8
11.
The claim regarding House Rent Allowance when
examined in the context of applicable rules, i.e. Accommodation
Allocation Rule 2002 (Rules of 2002) is also found not heritable – as
Tarka. The controversy that petitioners are not entitled to claim said
allowance, in view of definition of the expression “family” as
provided therein in terms of Rule 2(f), is not subject matter of this
petition. In view of the principle laid down, it is evident that payment
of house rent allowance is in the nature of compensation - intended
to provide assistance and shelter to the widow and the minor
children of the deceased employees – hence not heritable - as Tarka.
The petitioners are not entitled to claim house rent allowance as
Tarka. In short, the respondents have correctly denied this claim to
the petitioners, which claim otherwise does not fall with the
definition of expression ‘family’ in terms of Rule 2(f).
12.
It was argued by the learned counsel for respondents No.2
& 3 that, on merits, the claim of gratuity was declined in view of Rule
9.26 of pension-cum-gratuity scheme 1954, followed by the
department of (PAEC), which read as;
9.26:- when the amount of gratuity becomes
payable to the family of the government servant, the
payment is made according to the following
procedure:- of 20129
a)
the amount of gratuity is paid to the
nominee of the nominees in accordance with the
specified share
b)
where a valid nomination was not in
existence or the full amount was not covered by
the nomination, the amount of gratuity will be
paid in equal shares to the members of the family
with the exception of sons, unmarried daughters,
grandsons and granddaughters who have
attained the age of 21 years and married
daughters and granddaughters whose husbands
are alive. The share of widow / widows and
children of a deceased son will, however, be
limited to that as would have been admissible to
the son, had he not died.
13.
It is clear and evident that gratuity is also in the nature of
a compensation / grant, which becomes payable after the incidence
of death. Therefore, in wake of the principle discussed in Federal
Government of Pakistan v. Public-At-Large (PLD 1991 SC 731), and
lately followed in Re: Succession of the Assets Securities, Properties
and Accounts of late Javed Iqbal Ghaznavi (PLD 2010 Karachi 153)
and ZAHEER ABBAS V. PIR ASIF AND 6 OTHERS (2011 CLC 1528) and
LIAQUAT ALI V. Mst. HUMA FAIZ AND ANOTHER (PLD 2018 SINDH
W.P.No.4167 of 2012
10
251) claim of gratuity is not heritable – as Tarka. The judgments
referred by learned counsel for the petitioner and relevant to the
controversy involved are mentioned and discussed.
14.
Upon perusal of the record, it transpired that claim
regarding leave encashment was not denied by the department, not
in the orders / letters impugned through this petition. Without
commenting on the merits of the said claim - not subject matter of
the letters/orders impugned here - the petitioners are directed to
approach and raise said claim before the respondent No.2 who shall
examine the same and take decision in accordance with law and
judicial pronouncements.
15.
The respondents have questioned the maintainability of
the petition on the premise that Employees Service Regulations of
2007 are non-statutory. The objection is not sustainable in view of
the controversy raised, directions sought and questions involved, i.e.
relating to the interpretation of the law.
16.
In the circumstances, the claims in respect of gratuity,
Benevolent Fund, Group Insurance and House Rent Allowance were
rightly declined and no declaration to treat / construe said claims as
Tarka – heritable – can be made in view of the law laid down in
Federal Government of Pakistan v. Public-At-Large (PLD 1991 SC 731)
and the judgments referred and discussed above. The claim
W.P.No.4167 of 2012
11
regarding leave encashment may be raised before the respondent
No.2.
17.
This petition to the extent of claims regarding payment of
gratuity, Benevolent Fund, Group Insurance and House Rent
Allowance is without any merit and same is, therefore, dismissed.
(Asim Hafeez)
Judge
Announced in open Court on 07.02.2019.
Judge.
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
Comments
Post a Comment