' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.--- Through the instant petition under Ankle 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to release her family pension and all other pensionary benefits of her deceased husband, namely, Syed Ibn-e-Ali.
2. Brief facts of the case are that husband of the petitioner, namely, Syed Ibn-e-Ali had been serving as Line Superintendent-I in WAPDA/ LESCO. During service he passed away on 4.8.2006. In response to application of the petitioner, the respondents, vide order No,2174-76/E11104, dated 3.8.2009 granted 80% family pension to the petitioner while remaining 20% was withheld, on the ground that some inquiries were pending against her deceased husband. During lifetime of the deceased Syed Ibn-e-Ali his salary was stopped due to some audit paragraphs. However, vide office orders Nos,C-120, C-121, C-123 dated 11.5.2010 the cases pending against the deceased husband of the petitioner were closed. The petitioner made application to respondent No,2 on 4.2.2013 for release of remaining 20% of her family pension but the same has remained unattended by the respondents. Hence, the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents have withheld 20% of family pension and other outstanding pensionary benefits of her deceased husband without any legal justification; that despite a lapse of more than 9 years her lawful dues have not been paid, which amounts to depriving the petitioner's family of their livelihood and such an act of the respondents is in violation of Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; that despite all the cases pending against the deceased husband of the petitioner having been closed in the year 2010 family pension of the petitioner has not been released; that according to law due to death of the deceased employee of the respondents all the proceedings pending against him abated, therefore, his dues could not be withheld by the respondents; that outstanding audit paras could not stand in way of release of pensionary benefits to the family of the deceased employee; that in case of superannuation of an employee the pending inquiries are required to be concluded at least within one year of his retirement otherwise all departmental proceedings stand abated.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner's 20% family pension has been withheld due to, six audit paras which are still pending against the deceased husband of the petitioner; that 20% family pension of the petitioner has been withheld in accordance with law. He, however, admitted that all the cases pending against the deceased husband of the petitioner have been closed by the competent authority. S. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. There is no dispute that during lifetime husband of the petitioner had been facing certain inquiries, which could not be concluded till his death on 4.8.2006. The petitioner's assertion that all cases pending against her deceased husband have been closed by the competent authority is not denied by the respondents in their report and parawise comments. As per office Orders Nos,C-120, C-121 and C-123 dated 11.5.2010 three cases pending against husband of the petitioner have been closed by the competent authority. Surprisingly, despite closing of cases against the deceased the respondent-department has not released 20% family pension to the petitioner. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the respondent was asked to produce the Rules which empowered the respondent-Department to withhold any portion of the pension of the petitioner.
He, however, has not been able to cite any law or Rule in support of his stance. On the other hand, there is plethora of judgments of the superior Courts, including Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in which it has been consistently held that pension cannot be withheld one year after retirement of a civil servant. In the case of Sami-ur-Rehman v. Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh and 2 others (1983 PLC (C.S.) 832) it has further been held that enquiry pending on date of retirement abates completion of one year. In the present case as the employee had died during service, therefore, all kinds of proceedings initiated by the respondents stood abated from the date of his death i,e, 4.8.2006. The audit paras in question pending against the deceased employee should be treated alike. This Court in the case of Parveen Javaid v. Chairman WAPDA and 5 others (2011 PLC (C.S.) 1527) while dealing with an identical mater has observed as under:-- "It is settled law that an employee cannot be penalized for any action which is subject-matter of an inquiry which was not completed before his retirement. Reference in this regard may also be made to rule 54-A of the Fundamental Rules of Service which provides that on attaining the age of superannuation disciplinary proceedings which have not been completed, automatically abate and the civil servant is entitled to receive all pensionary benefits."
' In the cited case reference has also been made to the cases of Muhammad Anwar Bajwa, Executive Director, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, 1-Faisal Avenue, Zero Point, Islamabad v. Chairman, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Faisal Avenue, Zero Point, Islamabad (2001 PLC (C.S.) 336), Bilquis Nargis v. Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department (1983 PLC (C.S.) 1141), Syed Abdus Salam Kazmi v. Managing Director WASA, Multan and another (2005 PLC (C.S.) 244), Haji Muhammad Ismail Memon Advocate Complaint's case (PLD 2007 SC 35) and Muhammad Zaheer Khan v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment and others (2010 PLC (C.S.) 559) in which it has been held that the disciplinary proceedings against an employee must be completed before his date of retirement. An employee cannot be penalized for any action which was subject matter of an inquiry and was not completed before his retirement.
7. In view of case law' discussed above I am of the considered view that after death of the deceased husband of the petitioner, the respondents had no lawful authority or reason to withhold pensionary benefits of the deceased employee, which action on their part had definitely resulted in causing great financial hardship to his family members. The prolonged delay in releasing the family pension of the petitioner even after closing of cases pending against her deceased husband in the year 2010 the respondents failed to pay any heed to the lawful request of the petitioner.
Grant of 80% of family pension to the petitioner shows that there is no dispute with regard to entitlement of the petitioner to receive family pension of her deceased husband. This Court does not find any lawful reason or ground to justify withholding of 20% family pension and other pensionary benefits by the respondents, to which otherwise the petitioner is entitled according to law. In the case of The. Government of N. W.F.P. Through the Secretary to the Government of N.W.F.P.
Communications and Works Department, Peshawar v. Mohammad Said Khan and another (PLD 1973 SC 514) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under: "It must now be taken as well settled that a person who enters Government service has also something to look forward after his retirement, to what are called retirement benefits, grant of pension being the most valuable of such benefits. It is equally well settled that pension like salary of a civil servant is no longer a bounty but is a right acquired after putting in satisfactory service for the prescribed minimum period."
' Keeping in view the hardships being faced by the retired government servants in receiving their pensionary benefits due to the lethargic and uncalled for attitude of the concerned officials/officers the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Haji Muhammad Ismail Memon Advocate Complaint (PLD 2007 SC 35) while deprecating such a tendency has issued directions/guidelines to all government departments not to cause unnecessary hurdle or delay in finalizing the payment of pensionary/retirement benefits in future otherwise any dereliction of these directions shall amount to criminal negligence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has also directed that "in future if there is any delay in the finalization of the pension benefits cases of the government servants, widows or orphan children and matter is brought to the notice of this Court, the head of the concerned department shall also be held liable for the contempt of the Court and shall be dealt with strictly in accordance with law,"
8. For what has been discussed above, withholding 20% family pension and other pensionary benefits/dues/arrears to which the petitioner is entitled under the Rules is held illegal and unlawful.
Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the remaining 20% family pension and other dues/ arrears/benefits of the deceased husband of petitioner immediately.
9. The petitioner's husband died during service on 4-8-2006. Uptil now she has not been paid full pensionary benefits of her deceased husband without any legal justification. The petitioner has been denied her lawful legal right for a pretty long period of more than 9 years. Such a callous attitude shown by the respondents towards the family of a deceased employee is highly condemnable and the responsible officers/officials are liable to be burdened with heavy costs. In the circumstances respondent No,1 is directed to pay Rs,100,000/- while respondents Nos,2 and 3 are directed to pay Rs,50,000/- each, in their personal capacity, to the petitioner as a token compensation for causing her unnecessary delay in releasing the balance of her family pension in accordance with law. The amount of compensation will be paid by the respondents to the petitioner through the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Compliance report will be submitted by the office immediately after the payment has been made to the petitioner. In case the respondents fail to pay compensation to the petitioner within the aforementioned period of time, the same will be recovered as arrears of land revenue and paid to the petitioner. A report in this regard will be submitted by the District Coordination Officer, Lahore through the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court.