Find a Lawyer

Case No. 324/1175 of 1981, decided on 29th June, 1982.

‑‑ S. 4 read with Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S. 2 (i) (b) ‑ Appeal before Tribunal‑Maintainable by aggrieved civil servant‑Appeal not maintainable from heirs of deceased civil servant.

Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

Abdur Rehman deceased ex Patwari through Mst. Gulzar Begum (widow), Bukhtair Ahmad Khan son, Muhammad Saleem son, Amanat Ali son, Ramzan Ali son, Msl. Nasreen Bibi daughter and Mst. Perveen Bibi (daughter) have filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974 in which they have impleaded the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.), Sialkot as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal they have prayed that the impugned order dated 5‑10‑1978 and order dated 23‑5‑1981 of Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.) and Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore respectively be set aside and the appellants be allowed to persue the remedy through this appeal as legal representatives of the said ex‑Patwari (deceased).

3. Brief facts of the case are that Abdur Rehman deceased Patwari was charge‑sheeted, dated 7‑3‑1978 and was served with statement of allegations. He was also subsequently charged‑sheeted vide charge‑sheet dated 21‑6‑1978, on nine allegations as the charge‑sheet only was for 4 allegations. The accused replied the above‑said charge‑sheets. The Consolidation Officer Sialkot, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was still pending when a show-cause notice was issued under rule 6 (3) of Punjab Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 in the name of Abdur Rehman deceased to show as to why he should not be punished for having been allegedly absent from duty during the suspension. The show cause notice was duly replied. That subsequent to the dismissal order the deceased Abdur Rehman died on 2‑12‑1978. The legal representatives of the appellant preferred an application for the Group Insurance of the deceased which was rejected on 25‑3‑1979 saying that the deceased having died after dismissal the appellants were not entitled for the same. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length and find that the main issue for adjudication before us is whether the legal representative of the deceased Government servant can agitate the impugned order by which the deceased was dismissed or not.

5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced in this behalf and find that no appeal lies before this Tribunal unless the person so aggrieved is a civil servant. The civil servant in this case is Abdur Rehman who has died, therefore, by no stratch of arguments we are persuaded to uphold that the heirs of the deceased would assume the status of a civil servant. The present appeal is filed by the widow and sons of Abdur Rehman who are not a civil servant as laid down in the Civil Servants Act, therefore, we are not in a position to entertain this appear which is non‑maintainable.

6. In view of the above facts we proceeded to dismiss the appeal as being without any merits. There will be no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.