JUDGMENT MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J. - The petitioners Syed Muhammad, and Rahimullah Shah Abdullahzai, through instant petition sought an order in respect of payment of Group Insurance to them and other retired employees. The petitioner further sought review of Notification dated 19th September, 2007 being contrary to their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It was their contention that certain amount from their salaries were deducted during course of their service on account of General Provident Fund. Benevolent Fund, and Group Insurance. Further, the General Provident Fund and Benevolent Fund were refunded on their retirement, but as far as the Group Insurance was concerned, it was to be paid only to those employees, who died during tenure of vice. But in case otherwise, no amount was paid either the government employee or. To his family. It was further contended that the prevailing policy was changed by issuance of Notification dated 30th June, 2004 by the Government of Baluchistan. It was provided thereby that if the government employee died after his retirement upto the age of sixty-five (65) years, his family will be entitled for Group Insurance according to his grade and pay scale. But if otherwise, neither he nor his family would be entitled for any amount on account of Group Insurance.
Therefore, feeling aggrieved of the Notification of 2004 they approached the authorities by Submitting several applications to the effect. Resultantly the Government of Baluchistan issued Ordinance 2007 and the rules were formulated in 2008. The petitioners further contended that a sum in supersession thereof Notification dated 19th September, 2007 was issued, thereby notify enhancement in rates of premium against enhance insured sum. With an additional clause to the effect that the employees, who shall retire during period w.e.f. 1st July, 2007 to 20th December 2008 shall be paid actual amount of their contribution plus a reasonable increase not exceeding Rs.
50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). It was contention of the petitioners that through in the questioned Notification there was no distinction of new or old retired employees, but the concerned Department interpreted the Notification as it only meant for newly retired employees, thereby implemented since 1st July, 2007. The petitioners have questioned this Notification and prayed that they being entitled for the Group Insurance as their right, being a sum deducted from their own pay.
2. The Government of Baluchistan through Secretary, Finance Department filed their- reply with admission that the petitioners were contributory of Insurance Scheme as provided in Group Insurance Rules, 1972. It was contended that according to the mentioned Rules a specific sum was paid to the employees who died while in service, but in case of retirement there was no payment as there was no provision to the effect. But later in time this privilege was extended upto age of 65 years. It was their contention that the Government of Baluchistan promulgated the Provincial Employees Group Insurance Ordinance, 2007 (Ordinance XII of 2007) on 15th August, 2007 and Rules were framed as Provincial Employees Group Insurance Rules, 2007. Therefore, in the terms of law the Government had been notifying the rate of .Premium from time to time in supersession of previous Notifications. It was further contention of the respondent that the Government of Baluchistan was in agreement with the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan regarding the Group Insurance of its employees, whereby it was agreed that the benefit of Group Insurance could only be extended to the families of employees, whose death take place, while in service or within five years after his retirement. It was further explained that the logic behind allowing only contribution plus reasonable increase not exceeding Rs. 50,000/- to the regular Government employees, who shall retire during period, from 1st July, 2007 to 31st December, 2008 was that the contribution at nominal rates were received during past years had already been paid to the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan on account of premium, therefore, no funds were available to meet the expenditures on enhanced rates for payment to retirees. Further, Contribution/Premium received during the grace period from 1st July, 2007 to 31st December, 2008 on enhanced rate would enable to increase the fund to run the policy framed for the benefit of the Provincial employees on their retirement as well. The dismissal of the petition was prayed.
3. Learned counsel for the parties argued the matter at length. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the subject Notification dated 19th September, 2007 was questioned by the effecters through Constitutional Petition No. 350/2008 which was decided by this CouRT through order dated 7th August, 2009 whereby the proviso of the Notification was set aside being violative to the Constitution. Further the appeal preferred by the Government of Baluchistan was admitted for regular hearing, and presently the matter still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court- The main argument of the learned counsel was to the effect that if the Ordinance XII of 2007 is not applicable in case of persons retired earlier then it is discriminatory; also not cover the reasonable classification. Further, the treatment must base on principle of equality, which is missing in case in hand. The learned Additional Advocate General while arguing the matter contended that the amount mentioned in paragraph No. 3 of the written statement had already been paid to the petitioners, which they have not disclosed. Further the Ordinance XII of 2007 is not challenged by the petitioners, therefore, no relief can be granted in their favour to said extent.
4. Through instant petition the petitioners only questioned the Notification dated 19th September, 2007 whereby enhancement of rates of premium had been notified with the proviso to the effect that "provided that those employees who shall retire during 1st July, 2007 to 31st December, 2008, shall be paid actual amount of their contribution plus a reasonable increase not exceeding Rs.
50,000/-." This Proviso was also challenged by several persons by way of filing a Constitutional Petition No. 350/2008 which was decided by this Court through judgment dated 7th May, 2009 whereby the learned Judges arrived to the conclusion that; "we declare that the above portion of period or retirement is violative of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan being discriminatory and strike down from the said notification". This judgment had already been questioned before Hon'ble Supreme Court, where leave to appeal was granted through order dated 30th June, 2009 and is still pending. Therefore, in view of the fact as matter still sub-judice, therefore, to this extent no findings can be given by this Court. As far as remaining portion of the Notification 2007 is concerned, it can be considered and findings can be given thereon.
5. It was case of the petitioners that the employees retired before 1st June; 2007 are also entitled for the Group Insurance, as a matter of right as the amount was deducted from their own pay. The rest of the claim of the petitioners based on this assertion. According to Policies and Rules made by the Provincial Government certain amounts, though nominal, are deducted from the salaries of the government employees, during subsistence of their service. But on retirement-or death of art employee the deduction so made is returned on account of General Provident Fund and Benevolent Fund with other benefits. But the amount deducted under the head of Group Insurance was. Non- refundable to the employees who retired alive. Rather, it was paid only in case of death of an employee. The Rules governing the matter was the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Rules, 1972. Rules 6 and 6-A of the Rules 1972 are relevant, which read as under:- "6. Contribution to and benefits from Benevolent Fund:-(1) Every employee shall make a monthly payment to the Benevolent fund at the rate specified in column (3) of the Second Schedule.
(2) The monthly Benevolent grant under Section 13 shall be paid in accordance with the scale specified in column (4) of the Second Schedule.
6A. Subscription to and benefits from Group Insurance Fund. (1) Every employee shall make a monthly payment to the Group Insurance Fund at the rate specified in column (3) of the Third Schedule.
(2) - A sum specified in column (4) of the Third Schedule shall be paid to the family of an employee who dies while in service.
(3) A sum specified in column 3) of the Fourth Schedule shall be paid to the family of an employee who dies while in service on or after the 1st day of January, 2006.
Later in time Ordinance XII of 2007 was promulgated with title of Provincial Employees Group Insurance Ordinance, 2007, Therefore, the provisions of the Ordinance would govern the matters pertained to Group Insurance. Section 14 of the Ordinance is relevant in matter in hand as it described the payment of sum assured. Section 14 read as under:- "Payment of the sum assured:-(1) At the time of retirement or the death of an employee, the sum assured shall be paid to the employees or such member or members of his family as he might have nominated in accordance with rules in full or in the shares specified by him at the time of making the nomination or in absence of any nomination to the family member(s) receiving pension of deceased Govt, employee. At the rate of specified in column 2 of the schedule within 60 days. Provided that those retiring employees before 01-01-2009 shall be paid the actual amount of their actual contribution plus a reasonable increase not exceeding Rs. 50,000/-."
While the Schedule annexed thereto describe the rate of contribution. It also describes the assured sum on retirement/death and also the rate at which monthly deduction is to be made, described as premium. But as far as the impugned Notification is concerned, it only described the enhancement in rate of premium against enhanced assured sum of regular employees; therefore, it is to be read with Section 14 and Schedule of the Ordinance, not in isolation. But the petitioners failed to question the Ordinance XII of 2007, rather restricted their claim to the extent of the Notification 2007, thereby claimed their right. But failed to consider that the Ordinance had overriding effect on other laws, rule, order, notification, contract, Ordinance etc. Therefore, in presence of a Statute the Notification in itself have no binding force, which otherwise had been issued under provision of the Ordinance and have no separate sanctity. Therefore, in each case questioned Notification is to be read with the Ordinance, to have its course. But the petitioners failed to challenge the Ordinance.
6. Furthermore, during course of arguments the learned Additional Advocate General referred to Act X of 2009 ie. Baluchistan Provincial Employees Group Insurance Act, 2009 as an Act governing the matter in a hand. The Act has been promulgated on 20th October, 2009 and came into force at one. Further, the Ordinance XII of 2007 also stand repealed on its promulgation. Though the instant petition was filed in year 2008, when the Ordinance XII 2007 was very much in field, and during pendency, the Act X of 2009 superseded the Ordinance XII of 2007, thereby repealing it. But the petitioners neither challenged the Ordinance, which was very much in field, when they filed their petition, nor thereafter challenged the Act by seeking amendment in their petition. The impugned Notification is also no more in field. Therefore, in the given state of facts the petitioners have no case, and no relief, as prayed for can be granted.
In view of the above discussion the petitioners have failed to make out a case in their favour. The petition being without merits is hereby dismissed.