SHUJAA T ALI KHAN, J.----Unnecessary details apart, husband of the petitioner , namely Moazzam Mushtaq, was appointed as ESE (Science-Math BS-9) on contract basis, for five (5) years, on 05.08.2017. During interregnum period, the Government of the Punjab promulgated the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 (the Act 2018 ).
As a result, the case of the petitioner's husband was submitted before the District Education Officer (EE-M), Hafizabad (respondent No.2) on 29.09.2020 as reflected in Communication bearing No.51 1 E-1, dated 27.11.2020, addressed by the Deputy District Education Officer (EE-M), Hafizabad. Prior to approval of the matter by the Competent Authority , husband of the petitioner breathed his last on 05.11.2020. Asa result, Obituary Notification was issued on 22.04.2021 by responden t No.2. Subsequently , Notification regarding regularization of services of certain ESE (Science-Math) was issued but name of the husband of the petitioner was missing. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted application before the Chief Executive Officer, District Education Authority , Hafizabad (respondent No.1) but of no avail. As a result, she tried her luck by submitting complaint on Pakistan Citizen's Portal. Thereafter , respondent No.2 through letter , dated 17.02.2021, declined request of the petitioner on the ground that since her husband died on 05.1 1.200, during collection of data, he was not entitled for regularization.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since right of the petitioner's husband for regularization accrued on promulgation of the Act, 2018, he could not be deprived of the same mere on account of his death. Adds that since case of the petitioner's husband was submitted by the Supervisory Authority to the Competent Authority with positive note, he was entitled for regularization. Further adds that in the light of the judgment reported as Chief Secretary , Government of Punjab and others v. Ch. Iftikhar Ahmad 2013 SCMR 392, even a deceased employee, who otherwise is entitled for regularization, cannot be deprived of said benefit on account of his death rather his/her legal heirs can move to get the said benefits.
3. Learned Law Officer, while referring to the report and parawise comments, submitted on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 3, states that since the husban d of the petitioner died prior to issuanc e of formal order regarding his regularization, along with other colleagues, request of the petitioner cannot be entertained at this stage. Adds that though legal heirs of deceased employees are entitled to posthumous benefits but regularization being not part of the same cannot be claimed after death.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the documents, annexed with this petition, as well as the case-law cited at the bar .
5. It is admitted position that upon promulgation of the Act, 2018, respondent No.2 called for personal files of Educators, 2017 vide letter bearing No.750/Admn., dated 13.07.2020 and in reply thereto, the Deputy District Education Officer (EE-M), Hafizabad provided list of persons, who were entitled for regularization under the Act, 2018 through Communication bearing No.51 1 E-1, dated 27.11.2020, wherein name of late husband of the petitioner was available at serial No.8. This fact renders it crystal clear that prior to his death, petitioner's husband was found fit for regularization but the matter could not be decided by respondent No.2 for which husband of the petitioner could not be held responsible. It is well established by now that nobody should be prejudiced due to the act of public functionaries and a person who is found eligible for any benefit is entitled to it from the date when the same accrued to him. It is not case of the respondents that at the time of his death, late husband of the petitioner was not entitled for regularization in the light of provisions of the Act, 2018. The apex Court of the country in the case reported as Chief Secretary , Government of Punjab and others v. Ch. Iftikhar Ahmad (2013 SCMR 392), while dealing with the issue relating to benefits accrued to a deceased government servant in his lifetime has inter alia held as under:- "The High Court took the view that since the services of other ad hoc lecturers similarly placed as Mst. Akhtar Tufail have been regularized without their appearance before the Selection Board she was also entitled to the same treatment. The question, therefore, is whether upon death of Mst. Akhtar Tufail, the petitioner , husband can claim her pensionary benefits. Though other terms and conditions of the services of a civil servant may abate upon his death but not peculiar benefits to which the legal heirs would become entitled "
If the validity of the impugned order is adjudged on the touchstone of the afore-referred judgment of the apex Court of the country , there leaves no ambiguity that the same offends against the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan which otherwise has binding force upon all organs of the state in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
6. For what has been discussed above, instant petition is accused, impugned order , dated 17.02.2021, passed by the District Education Officer (EE-M), Hafizabad (respondent No.2) is set aside and the respondents are directed to treat the husband of the petitioner as regular ESE (Science-Math) and grant permissible posthumous benefits to his legal heirs. No order as to costs.