IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 410 OF 2020 
(On 
appeal 
against 
judgment 
dated 
16.10.2018 passed by the Peshawar High 
Court, Peshawar in Writ Petition No. 1184-
R/2017) 
 
The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, 
Islamabad 
 
… Appellant 
VERSUS 
Muhammad Ismail and another 
 
 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Appellant: 
Ch. Aamir Rehman, Addl. Attorney General 
 
Mr. Sajid ul Hassan, S.O. Establishment 
 
For the Respondent (1): In person  
 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
02.06.2021 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this appeal by 
leave of the Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the appellant has called in question the 
judgment dated 16.10.2018 passed by the Peshawar High Court, 
Peshawar, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 was 
allowed. While handing down the judgment, the learned High Court 
directed the appellant department to appoint the respondent No. 1 in 
pursuance of ‘Prime Minister’s Assistance Package for Families of 
Government Employees who die in service’ dated 13.06.2006 to be 
effective from 01.07.2005, which was further amended on 20.10.2014, 
04.12.2015 & 09.09.2016.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that respondent’s 
father while working as Senior Auditor in the office of Accountant 
General KPK, Peshawar, died on 14.10.1995. On 13.06.2006 the 
Government of Pakistan issued ‘Assistance Package for Families of 
Government Employees who die in service’ according to which 
son/daughter/widow/widower/family member, as the case may be, of 
the deceased government servant was made eligible for employment for 
Civil Appeal No. 410/2020 
2
posts in BS-01 to BS-15 on two years contract without any 
advertisement. This package was amended time and again and finally 
an amendment was made vide Office Memorandum dated 09.09.2016 
whereby the two years contract period was enhanced to 5 years and the 
same was also made extendable till the age of superannuation or 
regularization. The respondent No. 1 filed an application to the 
Accountant General KPK, Peshawar, for appointment on the quota of 
government employee, who died in service, on the basis of afore-referred 
memorandum dated 09.09.2016 but the same was never responded. 
The respondent then filed Writ Petition No. 1184-P/2017 before the 
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, which has been allowed vide 
impugned judgment and it has been held that a statute or rule giving 
right to the citizens always operates retrospectively. Hence, this appeal 
by leave of the Court.  
3. 
 
The crux of the arguments advanced by learned Additional 
Attorney General is that the father of the respondent died in the year 
1995 when there was no policy in vogue for employment of deceased’s 
family member, therefore, the respondent could not have been given 
retrospective benefit of the policy, which was issued later on with 
prospective effect. He added that the learned High Court has wrongly 
interpreted that a statute or rule giving right to the citizens always 
operates retrospectively and the impugned judgment being not 
sustainable in the eyes of law may be set aside.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, the respondent No. 1, who appeared in 
person, 
mainly 
stated 
that 
he 
possessed 
all 
the 
requirements/qualification but despite that he was not appointed on the 
basis of afore-referred office memorandum dated 09.09.2016, which 
amounts to depriving him from his legal right, which accrued to him in 
pursuance of the aforesaid Assistance Package.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned Law Officer as also the respondent 
No. 1 in person and have perused the record.  
6. 
 
It is an admitted fact that respondent’s father died in the 
year 1995 while he was in regular service of Accountant General KPK 
being Senior Auditor. At that time, there was no scheme/policy in field 
for induction of family member of deceased civil servant in service. It 
was on 13.06.2006 when the Government of Pakistan issued 
‘Assistance Package for Families of Government Employees who die in 
service’, to be made effective from 01.07.2005, wherein employment for 
Civil Appeal No. 410/2020 
3
posts in BS-01 to BS-15 on two years contract without advertisement for 
the families of deceased servant was surfaced. Thereafter, this package 
was amended thrice i.e. on 20.10.2014, 04.12.2015 and lastly on 
09.09.2016 whereby the two years contract period was enhanced to 5 
years and the same was also made extendable till the age of 
superannuation or regularization. We have perused the Assistance 
Package and the subsequent amendments but could not find any 
provision therein which gives it retrospective effect especially when the 
grievance of respondent was agitated with a lapse of almost 17 years. It 
is an established principle of interpretation of statutes / notifications / 
executive /  administrative orders that they would operate prospectively 
unless they expressly provide for retrospective operation. This Court in 
the case of Hashwani Hotels Ltd. Vs Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 
SC 315) has acknowledged this fact by observing that “it is a well-
settled principle of interpretation of a notification and/or an executive 
order that the same can operate prospectively and not retrospectively. 
This principle is equally applicable to a statute in the absence of any 
express or implied intendment contrary to it.” In this view of the matter, 
when it is clear that afore-referred Assistance Package for legal heirs of 
deceased government employee was not available at the time when 
deceased employee died and the same was issued later on with 
prospective effect, the respondent was not deprived of any right accrued 
to him at the relevant time by not appointing him. The learned High Court 
has erroneously presumed that a statute or rule, which gives right to the 
citizens, always operates retrospectively. If this is accepted, it would 
tantamount to opening a floodgate for all other similarly placed persons.  
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, this appeal is allowed 
and the impugned judgment is set aside.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
2nd of June, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram