IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Constt: Petition.No.D-1077 of 2015

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

Present:

Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio,

Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah,

· For orders on office objection “A”.

· For hearing of main case..

Date of hearing : 28.11.2018

Date of decision: 19.02.2019

Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri, Advocate for the petitioners

Miss. Shazia Surhio, State Counsel.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

1. The petitioners by way of instant constitutional petition have prayed for the following relief;

a). That on the consideration of facts and grounds mentioned above the impugned decision of respondents, disapproving the benefit of HC Murad Ali Malak as Shaheed and withholding benefit be declared discriminatory and without lawful authority and of no legal effect and violative of the principle of natural justice, having no legal consequences over the legal and fundamental rights of the petitioners.

b). Consequent to the above declaration this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to compensate the petitioners (widows of HC Murad Ali Malak), continue make payment of salaries and allowances upto the age of superannuation (60 years) and the normal pension thereafter and group insurance too as is being done in the cases of Shaheed police officers/officials.

c). That the costs of the petition be awarded to the petitioners.

d). That any other relief deemed fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be awarded to the petitioners.

2. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant constitutional petition are that HC Muhammad Murad who happened to be police constable in police department while was sitting in police mobile in line of his duty was hit by a Jeep which was allegedly being run in rash and negligent manner by its driver Noor Muhammad Chachar, resultantly HC Muhammad Murad died for that FIR Crime No.82/2012, under section 322, 279 and 353 PPC was registered with P.S Bakhshapur, District Kashmore @ Kandhkot. The case of late HC Muhammad Murad was placed before Committee constituted under the Notification No.POL-II-HD-7-125/2011, dated 29.12.2011, for his declaration as “Shaheed” which in its meeting held on 16.04.2015 did not approve the case of late HC Muhammad Murad for his declaration as “Shaheed”. It was in these circumstances, the petitioners being widows of said HC Muhammad Murad have filed the instant constitutional petition for the relief, as stated above.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that HC Muhammad Murad has died in line of his duty; as such he is entitled to be declared as “Shaheed”, and the petitioners are entitled to the benefits which the widows of "shaheed" are entitled to receive.

4. It is contended by learned State Counsel that HC Muhammad Murad has not lost his life at the hands of criminals in police encounter, he as such, could not be declared as “Shaheed” making the petitioners to be entitled for such financial benefits/assistance. By contending so, he sought for dismissal of the instant constitutional petition.

5. We have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

6. There is no denial to the fact that HC Muhammad Murad died of road accident when was on his duty. Since, the petitioners have come for compensation, provided under specific legislation, while claiming HC Muhammad Murad as ‘Shaheed’ , therefore, it would be conducive to see definition of term ‘Shaheed’ , provided by Sindh Shaheed Recognition and Compensation Act, 2014 (Sindh Act No.XVI of 2014) itself vide Clause-2(f) as:

“Shaheed” means a person who offered sacrifice of his life in line of duty in counter terrorism or becomes victim of an act of terrorism operation or targeted and killed by terrorists group and declared Shaheed in the manner prescribed by Government”.

From reading of above, it is quite obvious and clear that three different situation (s) have been provided i.e if:

i) he sacrifices his life in line of duty in counter terrorism;

ii) he becomes victim of an act of terrorism operation; or

iii) he is targeted and killed by terrorists group;

Since, there can be no denial to the fact that an official may meet its natural death even while performing his duties or even may be killed in result of personal enmity etc which, rightly would not be sufficient to declare him as ‘Shaheed’ which (Shaheed) has its own concept. This appears to be the reason that declaration of one as ‘Shaheed’ is subject to certain conditions / situations, therefore, the use of specific words like ‘counter terrorism’; ‘terrorism operation’ and ‘target killing by terrorists group’ shall always be required to be given their due meaning.

7. There is no denial to the fact that HC Muhammad Murad died of road accident and he did not loose his life in counter terrorism nor became victim of an act of terrorism operation nor targeted and killed by terrorist group, therefore, Committee was quite justified in not approving the case of HC Muhammad Murad. Since, it is well settled principle of law of interpretation that where the plain language of a statue admits no other interpretation then the intention of the legislature, conveyed through such language, is to be given its full effect. (PLD 2012 SC 501). Therefore, HC Muhammad Murad can not be declared to be “Shaheed” by this Court by making interpretation other than one which is prescribed by law, as is detailed above, only to benefit the petitioners at the cost of public exchequer.

8. Based upon above discussion, it could be concluded safely that the petitioners have failed to make out a case of infringement of their rights, which is sufficient for dismissal of their constitutional petition; it is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.

JUDGE