Find a Lawyer

S. 19‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), .Art. 199‑Payment of sum assured‑Beneficiary in case of no valid nomination‑If no valid nomination subsisted at time of death of employee, sure assured, held, could be paid to such member or members of family as may be prescribed or determined by Board or Officer authorized by such Board‑Deceased being unmarried and issueless, nominee/ brother being never objected to by Board, could be considered as member of family of deceased and would be entitled to be paid sum assured‑Claim of brother/nominee was accepted by High Court in constitutional jurisdiction.

Iftikhar Muhammad for Petitioner.,

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 11th May, 1986.

‑This constitutional‑ petition, filed by Muhammad Saddique petitioner, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 impugns the order dated 16‑9‑19‑‑5 of the Local Audit Officer, Ordnance Depot, Quetta whereby the petitioner was informed that the Board of the respondent had refused to make payment of Group Insurance and Benevolent Fund of late Muhammad Rafique brother of the petitioner.

2. The relevant facts of this petition are that late Muhammad Rafique was an employee of the Federal Government and working as Local Audit Officer at Quetta when he died on 28th August, 1 84. He was a contri butory to the Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance under the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Gtot,p Insurance Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). He was a bachelor and he had first nominated his nephew as beneficiary after his death but the nephew being not a member of the family as defined in subsection (5) of section 2 of the Act, late Muhammad Rafique nominated his brother, the petitioner Muhammed Saddique as beneficiary. The definition of the term family is reproduced below for the sake of convenience :‑

"family" means :‑‑

(a) in the case of a male employee, the wife or wives and in the case of a female employee, the husband of the employee ; and

(b) the legitimate children, parents, minor brothers, unmarried, divorced or widowed sisters of the employee wholly dependent upon him."

This nomination was accepted by the respondent Board, After the death of Muhammad Rafique the petitioner claimed the Group Insurance amount and Benevolent Fund amount from the respondent but he was informed that since he was not a member of the family the said amount could not be paid to him, hence the present petition.

3. One Faiz Muhammad Soomro, Assistant Director of the respon dent had appeared in this Court on 22‑12‑1985, 6‑4‑1986 and 16‑4‑1986 and bad also submitted written comments to the petition wherein the objection was taken that the petitioner was not a member of the family and according to the Act not entitled to claim the aforesaid benefits, so his request was rejected. The said Faiz Muhammad Soomro is absent today.

4. It has been frankly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit of bene volent fund in view of the provisions of rule 15‑C of the Rules made under the Act. However, he has claimed the benefit of Group Insurance. We have perused section 19 of the Act which for the purpose of better appreciation of the facts is reproduced below :‑

(19) Payment of the assured.‑(I) On the death of an employee, the sum assured shall be paid to such member or members of his family as he might have nominated in accordance with the rules in full or in the shares specified by him at the time of making the nomination.

(2) Where no valid nomination made by the employee subsists at the time of his death, the sum assured shall be paid to such member or members of his family, subject to such conditions imposed with a view to ensuring that the sum is justly and equitably utilized for the maintenance and benefit of all the members of the family, as may be prescribed or may, consistently with the rules, be determined by the Board or an officer authorised by the Board in that behalf.

It shall 5e seen from the aforesaid provision that if no valid nomination subsisted at the time of death of the employee the sum assured is to 'b pair to such member or members of the family as may be prescribed o be determined by the Board of an officer authorised by the Board in that behalf'. Since the nomination of the petitioner, who is brother of the deceased, was never objected to by the Board we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner could b.‑'considered as a member of the family of the deceased under the aforesaid provisions of section 19 and is entitled to be paid the sum assured.

We accordingly partially accept this constitutional petition and direct the respondent to make payment to the petitioner of the sum assured of late Muhammad Rafique. There shall be no order as to costs.

A. A. Petition partially accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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