UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J. The respondent's husband joined service in the petitioner-Corporation PIAC in the year 2011. He met with a car accident on 15.07.2014 and died as a result thereof. A week prior to his accident and death the petitioner had enforced its Administrative Order No.1.6/2014 specifying the financial and other benefits available to the legal heirs of deceased employees of the petitioner who died in its service. On 28.03.2014 the respondent and her suckling baby daughter applied for compensation under the aforenoted Administrative Order No.16/2014 dated 08.07.2014 through the father of the deceased employee of the petitioner.
2. In order to avail the benefits of the compensation package under the said Order there was nothing further to be done by the respondent because neither her relationship with the deceased employee was ever challenged by the petitioner nor the status of the deceased employee as being in the service of the petitioner was ever questioned. Nevertheless, the application of the respondent was kept pending by the petitioner even though the former submitted reminder applications on 05.05.2016 and 21.07.2016. Notwithstanding the efforts made by the respondent for grant of compensation under Administrative Order No.16/2014 no result could be accomplished. Therefore, finally in the year 2017 she filed a writ petition before the Peshawar High Court. The petitioner opposed the respondent's prayer on the ground that by Notification dated 30.06.2015, released pursuant to an Office Memorandum dated 09.02.2015 issued by the Establishment Division, the compensation package notified in Administrative Order No.16/2014 was put in, abeyance. However, the Peshawar High Court, in reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court titled Federation of Pakistan v. Salma Bibi (C.Ps. Nos.116 and 1267 of 2017 dated 08.01.2018), allowed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 07.05.2019 and issued a direction to the petitioner to grant the respondent relief in terms of the compensation package dated 08.07.2014. Presently, the petitioner has challenged this direction of the High. Court before us.
3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the maintainability of the writ petition on two grounds. First, that PIA is now a company and therefore is not an entity against whom a writ petition is maintainable. To support his contention he has relied on the judgments rendered in Naureen Naz Butt v. Pakistan International Airlines (2020 SCMR 1625) and Pakistan Airline Pilots Association v. Pakistan International Airline (2019 SCMR 278). Both these decisions pertain to service rights claimed by the employees of the petitioner whereas in the present case the right is claimed by the legal heirs of a deceased employee which will have no impact on the service structure or service conditions of the petitioner. In any event, under the test laid down in Salahuddin v. Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd. (PLD 1975 SC 244) the majority shareholding of the petitioner lies with the Federal Government and thereby ultimate control through the Board of Directors vests in the latter. Resultantly, the writ petition filed by the respondent was maintainable against the petitioner.
4. The second objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the compensation package announced on 08.07.2014 and claimed by the respondent is a non-statutory instrument which cannot be enforced in writ jurisdiction. We consider that the said package constitutes or constituted a firm commitment by the petitioner to the legal heirs of its deceased employees. The death of the respondent's husband occurred on 15.07.2014 when the said package was validly in existence. Consequently, as no other conditions had to be established (the relationship of the respondent with the deceased employee is not in issue) the respondent acquired a vested right to receive the benefits specified in the said package. The petitioner has, however, never decided the fate of the main application dated 28.08.2014 and of the subsequent reminder applications dated 05.05.2016 and 21.07.2016.
5. Regardless, the question whether the said package can be enforced by the Court is irrelevant when the petitioner itself has not opposed the entitlement of the respondent. Its only objection is that the said instrument was placed in abeyance by the Notification of 30.06.2015 and so no right thereunder could be claimed by the respondent in the year 2017. However, this objection is misconceived because the Notification of 30.06.2015 only suspended Administrative Order No. 16/2014. It did not in any way permanently bar the respondent's claim for compensation. This is evident from the text of the Notification itself which reads: "1. ...the compensation package to the families of deceased employees who die during service has been held in abeyance with immediate effect till finalization of the report of the Committee constituted by the Prime Minister under the Chairmanship of Secretary Finance [to re-examine the policy of death benefits)."
(emphasis supplied)
It is therefore clear from the excerpt produced hereinabove that finalization of the report of the Committee may have revived (either in its original or in an amended form) the compensation package of 08.07.2014. It is accepted by the petitioner that on 04.12.2015 the Establishment Division issued a revised Assistance Package for deceased Government employees w.e.f. 09.02.2015.
Essentially this meant that legal heirs of employees who died in service before 09.02.2015 would continue to receive benefits under the previous Assistance Package Schemes ("first category") whereas legal heirs of employees who died in service on or after 09.02.2015 would now be entitled to the benefits stipulated in the Notification of 04.12.2015 ("second category").
6. It is not disputed that the respondent's husband died on 15.07.2014. This is well before the cut-off date of 09.02.2015 specified in the Notification of 04.12.2015. The respondent's case therefore falls within the first category and is wholly governed by Administrative Order No.16/2014 dated 08.07.2014. A similar decision was also reached by a 3 member bench of this Court in the Salma Bibi case (supra): "4. The record reveals that the package in this case was notified on 20.10.2014 and given effect from 15.06.2013 while the death of the husband of respondent No. 1 in C.P. 1267 of 2017 took place on 18.7.2014... The package dated 20.10.2014 clearly and squarely covered the case of the respondents in the aforesaid petitions. Subsequent package notified on 4.12.2015 and given effect from 9.2.2015 will not affect the case of the respondents which having been set at rest before the target date is past and closed on all accounts..."
(emphasis supplied)
Since the Notification of 04.12.2015 revived Administrative Order No.16/2014, which had only been suspended by the Notification of 30.06.2015: a vested right accrued in favour of the respondent to have her applications of 28.08.2014, 05.05.2016 and 21.07.2016 considered by the petitioner.
Therefore, adopting the proper course we direct the petitioner to dispose of the applications filed by the respondent in accordance with the compensation package she has claimed. The decision on such application shall be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
7. During arguments we have also been informed that the respondent's father-in-law succeeded to collect Rs.2.3 million out of the service benefits of the deceased husband of the respondent. How he could have received the same without proper apportionment by the petitioner is a question that needs to be addressed. If necessary the amount due for payment to the respondent shall be paid in full and any excess payment to her father-in-law shall be recovered by the petitioner from its deceased employee's father without any prejudice to the respondent's rights.
8. Disposed of in the above terms.