Ghulam Murtaza vs Gop etc.

Form No:HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET.

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT MULTAN BENCH MULTAN

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

ICA No.101 of 2026

Ghulam Murtaza Versus Govt. of the Punjab, etc.

S. No. of Date of Order with signature of Judge, and that of order/ order/ Parties of counsel, where necessary. Proceedings Proceedings

24.06.2026 Raja Naveed Azam, Advocate for the appellant. Kanwar Sajid Ali, Assistant Advocate-General.

This Intra Court appeal is directed against judgment dated 02.03.2026, whereby appellant’s Constitutional Petition was dismissed by Learned Single Judge in Chambers while affirming order dated 27.11.2025, in terms whereof appellant’s representation was dismissed. Grievance stated is disentitlement of the appellant to continue to receive salary, in lieu of compensatory employment upon demise of his wife – appellant was receiving salary under Government’s incentive under Civil Servant Family Assistance Package.

Cause of severance was discovery of appellant’s re- marriage.

2.Learned counsel for appellant contends that appellant’s entitlement is determinable in terms of Notification No.FD-SR-1/3-10/2004 dated 15th August

2017 (Notification of 2017) and no such limitation can be construed in terms thereof. Adds that entitlement is covered till projected superannuation of demised wife and thereafter appellant is entitled to pension. Adds that manifest arbitrariness and discriminatory treatment, which is contrary to the dicta laid in cases of

“THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER REGIONAL TAX OFFICE,

BAHAWALPUR and others v. SHAHEEN YOUSAF” (2025 SCMR 1076), “ZOYA ISLAM v. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN ETC.” (PLJ 2024 LAHORE 811), “PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi and others v. Mst. SORATH FATIMA and another” (PLD 2025 SC 856) and “*PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of the Punjab, Lahore and others v. KANWAL RASHID and others” (2021 SCMR 730). Adds that reliance on the Notification No.FD.SR-III- 4-244/2023(B) dated 2nd December 2024 is misplaced as said notification does not deal with salary but pension matters.

3.Submissions are misconceived and result of misreading of the scope and underlying objectivity of Family Assistance Package.

4.We have examined the judgments referred, which are distinguishable on facts and law, which decisions are otherwise referred, discussed and distinguished in the impugned judgment. Case of “KANWAL RASHID and others” (supra) deals with pension matter regarding claim of

daughter to pension of both the parents. Cases of “SHAHEEN YOUSAF” (supra) and “ZOYA ISLAM (supra) are distinguishable, wherein widow(s), upon demise of husband(s) were appointed on contract basis – which appointments were treated as independent employment arrangements. In the case of “Mst. SORATH FATIMA and another” (supra) cessation of benefit was curtailed by an unauthorized executive action but stoppage of salary in the instant case is aligned with clear policy.

5.Compensatory employment is a welfare measure and intended for compensating the family, which may comprise of surviving spouse/family – in instant case deceased employee had other heirs besides a spouse – this weakens case of appellant’s personal entitlement.

Learned counsel has failed to appreciate the rationale, objectivity and inherent limitations gelled with the assistance package, which limitations cannot be unhinged to accommodate an appellant after realignment of the family structure/unit – by way of re- marriage of appellant is fatal to the survival of the benefit otherwise claimed before change of marital status. It is pertinent to mention that appellant was not appointed on contractual basis to serve and nor same was performing assignment / duties but drawing ex

gratia salary in wake of distressed situation encountered by the family of deceased employee – economic constraints due to loss of an earning hand. Appellant cannot claim entitlement to salary or any purported right for continuation of salary upon re-marriage, when he was not appointed as person to perform duties.

Rationale has to be drawn from the discontinuance of pension in case of remarry of the spouse or disentitlement of daughter’s claim to pension upon remarriage – allowing nominal employment to continue after re-marriage, when no entitlement to pension could be claimed, is to create an asymmetrical situation. The case(s) of compensatory employment, where a surviving spouse is appointed and awarded a contract and otherwise obligated to perform duties is distinguishable, wherein constitutional protection or individual’s right may be pressed – as in the cases of “SHAHEEN YOUSAF” (supra) and “ZOYA ISLAM (supra) - but not in the instance case when salary is paid ex gratia and without performance of duties. This elementary feature distinguishes this case from the dicta cited.

6.Undoubtedly, re-marriage alters the original structure of the family, as it existed at the time of demise of appellant’s wife and voluntary re-constitution thereof is a fair, genuine and plausible ground for

stoppage of salary. The very essence of financial assistance was to extend benefit to the families of civil servants who die in service. Claim of appellant proceeds on misreading of Notification of 2017, which Notification treats salary / pension at par, both payable subject to the conditions prescribed. Appellant’s primary argument is that Notification of 2nd December 2024 (Notification of 2024) deals with pension only and same bears no proximity to the salary drawn against compensatory employment. This may sound convincing but on sharper focus it is evident that family of deceased civil servant is pivot / central to the concept of compensatory employment and any variation in the definition of the family alters the scheme of arrangement. Absence of reference to salary in Notification of 2024 is inconsequential and extends no benefit to the appellant.

Even otherwise, Notification of 2017 does not protect or guarantee continuity qua claim of salary upon re- marriage; this constitutes misreading of the notification.

If re-marriage constitutes disentitlement to pension then how such status would legitimize receipt of salary despite re-marriage.

Compensation / benefit extended under the Family Assistance Package has two components, firstly availability of salary, with an appointment and

assignment of duties, till reaching of date of superannuation of deceased’s employee and secondly an award of pension afterwards. A remarriage that defeats the pension component must equally defeat the salary component. Hence, two components cannot be given a disjunctive reading and effect. A decision to re- marry is a voluntary act and has had consequences, which appellant choose to embrace.

7.In view of the facts and circumstances, claim of continuity of salary has been rightly declined. No interfere warranted.

8.In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is without merits and the same is, hereby, dismissed.

(Ch. Muhammad Iqbal) (Asim Hafeez) Judge. Judge.

A.D. Mian*

APPROVED FOR REPORTING