Law: Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969

Section: 11,13,17,18,19

Law: Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Rules, 1972

Section: 12

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

(a)    Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act (II of 1969)-------Ss. 11, 13, 17, 18 & 19---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Federal Government Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Rules, 1972, R.12---Group insurance and benevolent fund, payment of---Widow, right of---Entitlement--Laches, applicability of---Exception---Recurring cause of action---Petitioner (widow of deceased employee) instituted the present Constitutional petition seeking release of benevolent grant, group insurance and pensionary benefits arising from the services of her deceased husband, who joined the respondent company in 1982 and retired in 2008 under the Voluntary Surrender of Service (VSS) Scheme, in pursuance of which he was paid under the VSS agreement, but monthly pension was denied on the ground that he fell short of the 20 years qualifying service requirement---He had served 19 years and 7 months in regular service--Respondent company later introduced a 'separation bonus scheme' for employees falling short of 20 years, which was credited to his account---After death of petitioner's husband in 2015, petitioner (widow) filed the present petition upon rejection of pensionary claims by respondent company by asserting that the shortfall of months should have been condoned and that she was entitled to benevolent grant and group insurance---Held: Case of the petitioner (widow) fell in the same category of case which had been decided by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2506 of 2016 whereby the Supreme Court held that the appellants had no valid grievance as they had voluntarily opted for the VSS (Voluntary Separation Scheme), accepted the separation bonus (which was only available to those with less than 20 years of qualifying service), and signed the waiver forms; they did not disclose the said facts in their petitions, which amounted to a non-disclosure of material facts; that if the appellants truly believed they had completed 20 years of service and were entitled to pension, they should not have accepted the separation bonus or should have refunded it before pursuing pension claims; that their conduct barred them from seeking pension…