—Constitution of Pakistan—Art. 25—Employees of Punjab Mineral Development Corporation (‘PUNJMIN’)—Financial assistance for family of deceased employees—Discrimination against family of deceased employees— Petitioner (widow of employee of PUNJMIN) applied for financial benefits under Notification dated 15.08.2017 (‘the notification-in-question’) after death of her husband on 07.02.2019; but she was declined assistance on the ground that the notification-in-question was applicable from the date of its adoption i.e. 03.10.2019 by the respondent-PUNJMIN and not retrospectively from 22.02.2017, as made effective by the adopted notification whereas the date of PUNJMIN Board meeting was subsequent and that Board had not clearly approved adoption of the policy retrospectively—Plea was that PUNJMIN is a Corporation created by Punjab Mineral Development Corporation Act, 1975 (‘Act of 1975’) whereas Assistance Package by the Government of Punjab was only meant for the civil servants while the petitioner’s husband was never a civil servant but was an employee of the Corporation (PUNJMIN)—Question was whether families of the employees of a statutory Corporation fully owned and controlled by the Government of Punjab and families of a deceased Civil Servants were different classes for the purpose of the Art. 25 of Constitution”—Held, that the respondent’s/Government’s claim was that power of adopting notification vested in the Board, which had not given it retrospective effect expressly, therefore, it was applicable prospectively—Said submission was an explicit admission that the Board had jurisdiction to apply it retrospectively—Consequent question arose whether Board had exercised its power contrary to the guaranteed fundamental right under Art. 25 of the Constitution— Statutory Corporations are created, by or under the law, for administrative ease of the Provincial Government, deriving competence from the Constitution, and their financial and administrative control is always with the Government, as is discernable from S. 5 of the Act of 1975—Literally, financial terms are determined under the relevant special law, but practically, the financial benefits extended to the family of civil servants are extended to the family of employees of the Corporation, on approval by the Cabinet Division through Finance Department and as a consequence, the competent authority or Board adopts the notification of financial benefit—Financial benefit-in-question, was meant for families of the employees, who died during service—There was no denial that both, employees of the Corporation and Civil Servants were paid from the Provincial Consolidated Fund after similar procedure for allocation, approval and disbursement—Since employees of the Corporations are not administratively controlled by relevant departments or Ministries, therefore, the procedure of adoption of the notification is applied—Such discrimination would certainly offend the equality clause under the Art. 25 of the Constitution which ensures equal treatment and equal financial protection—Thus, both sets of employees are employees of Government of the Punjab, one is called civil servants and the other employees of the Corporation—If Government of Punjab takes any decision to help the families of deceased employees, through any financial package, it cannot discriminate between families of other employees being paid from the same consolidated fund of the Provincial Government—Family of an employee, who died during service, undergoes similar difficulties, financial or social, while living in similar circumstances, therefore, can not be discriminated against in absence of any extra financial protection to one class, which may be a case for terms and condition and financial terms for an employee of a Corporation and a civil servant—But for financial benefit to the family of a civil servant or to an employee of a Corporation, different treatment only for the reason that the employee died before the date of adoption, amounts to creating another class, even, between the employees of the Corporation—Extension of the same financial benefit to the families of employees of the Corporation, confirms that both the families are equally placed—Procedure of adoption, being a legal requirement, may delay the extension of financial benefit but cannot deprive a family, merely for the reason that the employee died before the date of adoption— High Court directed that impugned order would have no binding effect and the notification of the adoption dated 03.10.2019 shall be deemed to have been issued with retrospective effect i.e. from 22.02.2017—Constitutional petition , filed by widow of employee of Punjab Mineral Development Corporation, allowed, in circumstances. Allah Nawaz Khosa, M. Irfan Arif Sheikh and Salman Farooq for Petitioner. Malik Abdul Aziz Awan, Additional Advocate General Punjab for Respondents. Faheem-ur-Rehman, Advocate/Legal Advisor and Akram Sikandar Gondal, Manager (Admin). Mrs. Naseem Mushtaq, Advocate/Law Officer, Finance Department.Click here to download complete file