15/04/2023
مرحوم سرکاری ملازم کے واجبات کی نوعیت۔
کونسے واجبات ترکہ شمار کیے جائینگے۔
لاہور ہائیکورٹ کے فیصلہ جات
2022 CLC 2030
Nominee of service benefits---Uninheritable nature---Scope---Succession certificate was issued in favour of respondent being widow of the deceased---Petitioner filed application for revocation/cancellation of said succession certificate claiming entitlement to service benefits i.e. pension; death gratuity; insurance; monthly salary; and other service claims---Petitioner (maternal nephew/adopted son of deceased) contended that said benefits were construable as compensation/grant not classifiable as estate of deceased/Tarka /heritable payable to petitioner being nominee of deceased under nomination form which the deceased submitted to Bank at time of employment and that respondent/widow had concealed the identity of other legal heirs of deceased---Petitioner's application was concurrently dismissed---Held, that group insurance, provident and benevolent funds were grants/compensation being service benefits not claimable by the employee during his lifetime and would only mature after his/her death, hence same being not form part of Tarka not heritable---Respondent/widow had claimed certain amounts including salary payable at time of deceased' death, which could be termed as heritable---Petitioner failed to refer to available rules/regulations of concerned Bank as to help in determination of status of alleged nominee/entitlement claimed---Report procured from manager of concerned branch/Bank showed that in case of dispute arose between parties, Bank would always request the parties to seek the court order and disburse the due amount to the legal heirs according to succession certificate issued by competent court of law---Status of nominee and claim raised thereby in context of competing interests with legal heirs was always held unenforceable being subservient to the dictates of law of succession---Issues regarding service benefits on basis of nomination form and that regarding heritable/payable salary were construable as intricate issues which would require determination by the competent court, enjoying general/plenary jurisdiction upon filing of a suit---Notwithstanding accrual of intricate issues, a certificate could be issued in terms of subsection (3) of S.373 of Succession Act, 1925, upon achieving prima facie satisfaction qua successor and after securing security as condition precedent for rendering accounts and extending protection to the potential claimants, whose rights would be determined/declared through judicial pronouncement---Petitioner's application for revocation of succession certificate was rightly dismissed by courts below on ground that rights claimed could not be determined in proceedings under Succession Act, 1925 and remedy lied before court exercising general jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
2022 PLC(CS) 43 LAHORE
Group insurance was intended to extend monetary benefits to family of deceased employee, provided the employee had contributed in such head during his service---Group insurance was a kind of grant / compensation which had accrued after death of an employee---From inheritable benefits, group insurance had been excluded and was not a Tarka --- Family of any employee who had died during service was held entitled under S.15 of Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969, to receive insurance amount---High Court declined to interfere in the matter as claim of petitioners was untenable--- Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
2021 PLC(CS) 377 LAHORE
Pensionary benefits---Succession certificate---Islamic Law---Tarka ---Nominee, entitlement of---After death of civil servant during his service, his legal heirs applied for succession certificate which included Bank accounts, general provident fund, leave salary, leave encashment, gratuity and group insurance---Validity---Test to determine any service benefit heritable by and for considering it 'Tarka ' for all his legal heirs, was invariably availability thereof to the concerned employee during his service or on/after retirement--- All other benefits allowed by employer out of his discretion, even to be paid during his lifetime or on the eve of his retirement or on his death were regarded as a grant or concession, to the exclusion of 'Tarka '--- Benefits accrued on end of service or after death of person like gratuity, group insurance, benevolent fund and general provident fund, were grant/concession/compensation and could not be regarded as hereditary in nature nor could be interpreted to mean 'Tarka '--- High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside order passed by Lower Appellate Court as petitioner/widow was entitled to receive gratuity, general provident fund, group insurance and benevolent fund---Revision was allowed in circumstances.
PLD 2019 LAHORE 474
Tarka ---Scope---Inheritable claims---Rights of heirs other than nominee---Scope---Deceased had nominated respondent, his wife, as nominee for service benefits but appellant who was father of deceased challenged the same on grounds of inheritance---Authorities transferred benevolvent fund to appellant but refused to transfer other claims as he was not nominee and single Judge of High Court maintained such orders---Validity---Service benefits comprising of claim regarding Welfare Fund, compensation and six months' pay and amounts paid in respect thereof were in nature of "grant" or "compensation" which was neither inheritable, nor formed part of 'Tarka ' or estate of deceased---High Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Single Judge of the High Court as there was no illegality, jurisdictional defect and mis-application of law, relevant rules and regulations---Appellant had no entitlement to claim service benefits, being legal heir of deceased which rightly fell to entitlement of respondent being duly nominated for the same---Claim of benevolent fund was already directed to be transferred to appellant in wake of re-marriage of widow---Intra-court appeal was dismissed accordingly.
2019 PLC(CS) 1467
House rent allowance was not heritable as Tarka ---Payment of house rent allowance was in the nature of compensation intended to provide assistance and shelter to the widow and minor children of the deceased employee---Petitioners (legal heirs of the deceased) were not entitled to claim house rent allowance as Tarka , in circumstances---Department had rightly denied the claim of house rent allowance to the petitioners---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
2019 PLC(CS) 1467 Benevolent fund and group insurance of the deceased employee---Succession certificate, issuance of---Only such benefits were inheritable which became receivable by the deceased during his lifetime i.e. payable to the employee before his death---Service benefits given to an employee as grant/compensation in lieu of death and made payable to a nominee or family were not heritable and could not be treated as Tarka -estate of the deceased---Benevolent fund and group insurance could not be treated as heritable being specie of grant/compensation accrued after death of an employee.
PLD 201 LAHORE 360
'Tarka '---Scope---Pensioner's Benefit Account --- Such account was an investment by pensioners, under the National Saving Schemes, with the aim and object of reducing hardships faced by pensioners---Amount deposited in such account could be withdrawn by the pensioner at any time during his life, thus, it squarely fell within the definition of 'Tarka '---All legal heirs of a pensioner would be entitled to inherit the amount in the Pensioner's Benefit Account.
2014 YLR 1553
Tarka /estate of deceased---Scope---Group Welfare Scheme of Employees---Deceased was employee of Air Force and died during service---Controversy was with regard to distribution of movable and immovable properties left by the deceased to all the legal heirs---Held, Tarka /estate of deceased would consist of immovable or movable properties, money and all other articles which he owned and over which he had control and dominion---Amount which had accrued to an employee during his lifetime whether he had received the same or not before his death should become part of estate and such amount had to be distributed among the legal heirs---If amount accrued was "grant" or "concession" then same would be payable to the nominee of the deceased---Amount of Group Welfare Scheme could not be claimed by the deceased during his lifetime nor deceased could ask for payment of the same which would become due and payable to him after his death---Said amount was nothing but an insurance scheme which was payable to an employee in case of his death during service---Amount of Group Welfare Scheme was not part of Tarka /estate and same would not be divided among the legal heirs of the deceased---House was given free of cost to the deceased and same was neither money nor monetary allowance but same could be given as compensation or monetary allowance---Deceased had knowledge that house would be allotted to him either on payment or free of cost in case of death during service being member of Housing Society---Said house was awarded to the nominee in exclusion of other legal heirs as a compensation---Nomination could not be treated as a valid transfer of house from the deceased to the nominee---Nomination was neither "will" nor "gift" and same could not be treated as a transfer of immovable property---No question of delivery of possession of plot at the time of nomination was made as at that time no plot had been allotted to him---House in question, in circumstances, was to be devolved upon the legal heirs of the deceased---Appeal was partly accepted in circumstances.
2011 CLD 1753
Group insurance--- Tarka of deceased---Nominee---Scope---Deceased insurer was survived by a widow and two children and three children from a wife duly divorced by him in his life time---During pendency of litigation between widow and children from divorced wife, Insurance company paid Group Insurance policy to widow on the ground that deceased had made her nominee in insurance documents---Validity---Dispute between both the parties regarding entitlement to shares in Group Insurance claim was within the knowledge of Insurance company, therefore, unless the dispute was proved to have been resolved or settled, Insurance company should not have released payment of claim to the nominee---Rights of nomination were inoperative under S. 73 of Insurance Ordinance, 2000, read with rule 8 of insurance Rules, 2000, where insurer had express notice about dispute regarding entitlement to insurance money---Insurance company was bound by its duty under law to respect such entitlement of children from divorced wife---High Court directed Insurance company to pay to children from divorced wife, their respective shares/amount due to them under Group Insurance claim arising from death of deceased insured--- Petition was allowed accordingly.
2006 YLR 3236
Succession---Insurance money---Claim of share in such money---Death claim of petitioner with regard to his deceased wife having been accepted by Insurance Corporation, a cheque of insurance amount was issued to petitioner---Respondent claimed his share in the insurance money, which was resisted by petitioner, but respondent was held entitled to share in the death claim in accordance with Islamic law---Contention of petitioner was that death claim not being the property of deceased in her life time, same could not be considered as 'Tarka ' and same was not heritable---Validity--Death claim, voluntary claim and group insurance though were not 'Tarka ' to be inherited by the legal heirs, but those were grant/compensation to be distributed among the legal heirs according to Islamic share---One could not be excluded at the cost of other.
2006 YLR 2675
Inheritance---Amount of Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance was inheritable acid would devolve upon the heirs of the deceased being his "Tarka "---Mother of the deceased who was nominee, would not be entitled exclusively to claim such amounts except to the extent of her share as per Shariat with other legal heirs of deceased i. e. widow and children of deceased---Brother of deceased was not the legal heir of deceased in presence of male issues of the deceased.
1999 CLC 806
1999 PLC(CS) 793
General Provident Fund and Gratuity of the deceased---Both were in the nature of "Tarka " the same would go to the legal heirs of the deceased---Real sister of the deceased being the only legal heir of the deceased was entitled to such amount.
