The counsel for the petitioner submits that his father died during service and that he, as soon as he gained majority of age, approached the respondents with an application rooted in Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 but that his request, ever since, has neither been acceded to nor considered and, therefore, seeks a Mandamus to the respondents.
2. It may be noted that Rule 17-A is a self-executory rule and is triggered the minute the contingency on which it is, predicated occurs i.e. death or invalidation.
3. Send a copy of this petition to Respondent No. 4/Chief Executive Officer District Health Authority, Health Department, Muzaffargarh, who is directed to ensure that the application filed by the petitioner and pending before him is decided strictly in accordance with law in a fair and reasonable manner within a period of 20-days from today. The petitioner reserves his right to come back to this Court if his grievance persists.
4. What is, however, absolutely unarguable, is the fact that Rule 17-A is a piece of beneficial legislation. It is a Rule which purports to confer a benefit on a class of persons. Examples of such laws are public assistance laws, laws on unemployment relief, etc. It is trite that beneficial legislation should be interpreted in a purposive or teleological manner as opposed to the strict literal approach because, such a purposive approach would advance the objects of such welfare legislation. This purpose oriented approach encourages a liberal construction to promote its objects. Words occurring in Rules of liberal import such as social welfare and unemployment relief Rules are not to be shrunk to Lilliputian dimensions. In constructing such Rules, the imposture of literal construction must be avoided. What is relevant is the color, the content and the context of such enactments. In the words of the Indian Supreme Court (1980 (4) SCC 443 Surendra Kumar), "Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of bread and butter enactments." Welfare enactments must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where an enactment is designed to give relief to a particular group or class of persons, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions.
5. The raision d'etre behind insertion of Rule 17-A is not hard to discern. It was specifically added in an already existing catalogue of Rules only to compensate and provide a bond of fate to one immediate family member of a government servant who either died or was rendered incapacitated or invalidated while in service. There is no other possible reason for the insertion of Rule 17-A. One question that arises in the present context is as to how administrative instructions or notifications that do not have the force of law be allowed to whittle down the effect and impact of the Rule. In fact, any notification or instruction that seeks to take away the benefit conferred by Rule 17-A borders on being exploitative within the meaning of Article 3 of the Constitution. It may also be viewed as an unnecessary incursion into the protection afforded by Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution. It is trite that right to life not only denotes the right to a vegetative life but to a vibrant life in which basic facilities and amenities required for human and civil existence are accessible and available to a citizen. Likewise, a citizens' dignity which is secured by Article 14 of the Constitution will be compromised if administrative instructions are allowed to make inroads on his dignity.
6. Respondent No. 4 is directed to decide the application of the petitioner while keeping in view the rationale behind insertion of Rule F 17-A. The learned AAG shall convey the order passed by this Court to the Respondent No. 4.
7. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.