State Life Family Jobs: FCC Refuses to Extend Policy Before 13 June 2006

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

The adopted cutoff controlled the family-employment claim

The Federal Constitutional Court has allowed State Life Insurance Corporation's appeal against a direction to consider Shahzad Saleem Faiz for employment under a family-claim policy. His father died in service on 24 May 2005, before the Corporation's adopted cutoff of 13 June 2006. The Court held that compassion could not justify extending the policy backwards where it did not provide that benefit. Judgment, paragraphs 3 and 5–8.

Justice Ali Baqar Najafi wrote the judgment in C.P.L.A. No. 1901 of 2022, sitting with Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan. It is dated 22 September 2026, was uploaded to the official register on 14 October 2026, and is not approved for reporting. Complete judgment; official register.

The central questions were whether a federal policy applied automatically to State Life and whether the Court could extend the Corporation's adopted policy to an earlier death. The FCC answered both against the claimant on this record. Judgment, paragraphs 4–7.

Why the son sought appointment

Shahzad Saleem Faiz was born on 19 March 2000. His father, Gul Faiz Muhammad, was a Superintendent in State Life's Central Zone, Lahore, and died during service on 24 May 2005. Shahzad was the youngest son, and no other sibling had been accommodated against the family claim. He applied on 5 December 2019, relying on Matric and F.A. qualifications. The judgment notes that the certificates were not enclosed. Judgment, paragraph 2.

When his application was not attended to, he sought a constitutional direction for appointment to a post suited to his qualifications. On 12 April 2022, the Peshawar High Court's D.I. Khan Bench allowed W.P. No. 692-D of 2020 and sent the matter to State Life's Zonal Head at Kohat for consideration under the policy within one month. It was a direction to consider employment, not a completed appointment. Judgment, paragraphs 1–2.

The federal package and State Life's own adoption were different

The claimant relied on the Prime Minister's Assistance Package promulgated on 13 April 2005, when his father was still alive, and an amendment dated 17 April 2018. The High Court treated the federal policy as applicable to State Life and extended the Corporation's adoption back to the father's death. These were the positions examined and rejected by the FCC. Judgment, paragraph 4.

The Corporation's Board adopted a CBA agreement at its 219th meeting on 22 April 2011. The judgment also identifies a notification dated 26 July 2011. The family-employment benefit was deliberately extended from 13 June 2006, rather than from the earlier date sought by the claimant. Judgment, paragraphs 3 and 6.

The FCC described State Life as a semi-autonomous body, run by its Board and controlled by the Federal Government, with its own statutory service regulations. Federal instructions and circulars required Board adoption; they did not automatically become the Corporation's statutory or executive instructions. No example of a family-claim appointment for a death before the cutoff was shown. Judgment, paragraph 5.

A right accruing at death requires an applicable policy

The FCC referred to State Life Insurance Corporation v. Muhammad Hanif, Civil Petition No. 410 of 2017, dismissed by the Supreme Court on 7 March 2018. In the similar situation described, the employee had died on 8 April 2005, before the same cutoff. Judgment, paragraph 5 and footnote 1.

It also distinguished The Province of Sindh v. Muhammad Rizwan Khan and others, the listed FCPLAs decided on 27 February 2026. Although a family-appointment right may accrue at death under an applicable legal scheme, the FCC emphasised that a governing law must already exist. The proposition could not create an entitlement under a policy that did not cover this death. Both earlier references are reported as cited in this judgment; their separate full texts have not been independently verified. Judgment, paragraph 5 and footnote 2.

Sympathy could not supply the missing entitlement

The Court acknowledged that genuine hardship and humanitarian circumstances may deserve consideration. It nevertheless held that equitable considerations could not override an express rule or binding policy. It cited Director General, National Savings, Islamabad v. Balqees Begum and others, PLD 2013 SC 174, for the priority of a clear legal mandate over equity. Judgment, paragraph 7 and footnote 3.

The FCC also referred to the financial and administrative effects of expanding the policy retrospectively. Its conclusion was that the court could protect an existing right where policy violated it, but could not create a new right simply to accommodate the claimant. It found no existing right violated here. Judgment, paragraphs 6–7.

This holding does not decide every possible challenge to every employment cutoff. It rejects the retrospective extension sought under this particular adopted policy. Likewise, it should not be read as saying that all federal instructions never bind any public body: the Court examined State Life's institutional and service framework. Judgment, paragraphs 4–7.

Result and practical effect

The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed. State Life's challenge succeeded. The judgment's final paragraph does not specify a separate costs direction or a payment obligation. Judgment, paragraph 8.

For comparable claims, the essential documents are the policy actually adopted by the employer, the adoption decision, its effective date, and the employee's date of death. A general federal announcement and a hardship argument cannot, on this ruling's reasoning, replace proof that the employer's governing scheme covered the claim. Judgment, paragraphs 3–7.

For another FCC service-law decision published today, read Gulfam Nasir's back-benefits case.

Sources

• Complete supplied six-page judgment; the sixth page contains the case-number header.
• Verified official FCC judgment PDF.
• Official FCC judgment register.
• Earlier authorities listed in the supplied judgment: State Life v. Muhammad Hanif, C.P. No. 410 of 2017; Province of Sindh v. Muhammad Rizwan Khan and others, listed FCPLAs decided on 27 February 2026; Director General, National Savings v. Balqees Begum, PLD 2013 SC 174. Separate texts and later treatment not independently verified.