Law: Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974

Section: 10A,11A

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 4,5,9,25,27,189,199

(a)    Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974-------Rr.10-A & 11-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 5, 9, 25, 27 & 199--Appointment under deceased quota, right of---Appointment of legal heirs upon demise of employee during service---Eligibility and scope---The petitioner's father was serving as a Superintendent (BS-17) in the District Education Office when he passed away during service on 02.12.2019---The petitioner, as a surviving legal heir applied for appointment under the deceased quota---Respondents reluctance in appointing the petitioner prompted him to file the present constitutional petition--The respondents opposed the claim, citing that R. 11-A, which governed such appointments, had been omitted following the Supreme Court's judgment reported as PLD 2024 SC 1276, resulting in the withdrawal of Rr. 10-A & 11-A of the APT Rules, 1974, thereby extinguishing the deceased/son quota policy---Validity---Held: Perusal of record revealed that the case of the petitioner for appointment under deceased quota was pending decision with the department since five years for unknown reasons though his father died on 02.12.2019 and Rr. 10-A & 11-A were inserted in the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 (the APT Rules) through sub-ordinate legislation---Admittedly, a right in favor of the family of the deceased employee accrued when policy to accommodate the children of deceased employees was introduced---Rules 10-A & 11-A of APT Rules were beneficial provisions aimed at supporting the bereaved families of deceased civil servants who died during service---The department acted with gross negligence in petitioner's case and he should have been given equal treatment as meted out to the children of other employees who became entitled to get benefit of the Rules mentioned above during the applicable period---The case of the petitioner was not affected by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as PLD 2024 SC 1276, because of the reason that father of the petitioner died while in service in the year 2019 and such right accrued to him in year 2019 and subsisted…