Ombudsman cannot act as substitute for every statutory forum: FCC

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that the Ombudsman cannot act as a substitute for every statutory forum and cannot assume jurisdiction over matters specifically entrusted by law to another designated authority.

“The Federal Ombudsman could neither enlarge the jurisdiction conferred upon him by the Order by characterizing a dispute as one of maladministration, nor usurp the statutory function expressly entrusted to the EOBI under section 33 of the Act,” said the judgment, authored by Chief Justice FCC Amin-ud-Din Khan.

The court held that the expression “maladministration” is the substantive touchstone for determining the jurisdiction of the Wafaqi Mohtasib under Article 9 of the Order of 1983.

“The jurisdiction cannot be enlarged beyond the limits prescribed by the statute on considerations of equity or expediency; nor can it be constricted by treating maladministration as synonymous only with an express violation of law. It’s amplitude must be gathered from the language deliberately employed in Article 2(2).”

The judgment said where the complained-of conduct of an Agency answers any of the statutory descriptions of maladministration and does not fall within an express exclusion, the Mohtasib is vested with jurisdiction to investigate the grievance and, upon recording a finding of maladministration, to exercise such remedial authority as the law confers. Where the foundational ingredients are absent, the assumption of jurisdiction would itself amount to an excess of the authority conferred by the Order of 1983.

The brief facts giving rise to the controversy are that the respondent (Javed Iqbal Bhatti), remained in the employment of Askari Bank Limited from 01.07.2008 to 09.05.2014, rendering 5 years, 10 months and 8 days of service. Upon his application for old-age benefits under the Employees’ Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, he was sanctioned an old-age grant of Rs.48,000/- on 16.12.2015.

Subsequently, in view of the judgment rendered by Supreme Court in Workers’ Welfare Funds, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Islamabad v. East Pakistan Chrome Tannery (Pvt.) Ltd, [PLD 2017 SC 28] whereby the applicability of the Act to banking institutions was held to be excluded, Respondent’s entitlement to benefits under the Act ceased to subsist.

Aggrieved thereof, the Respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the Federal Ombudsman, who, vide order dated 19.06.2023, directed payment of old-age pension to him. The (EOBI) department said order was assailed before the President of Pakistan, but was maintained vide order dated 04.09.2024. The petitioners thereafter questioned both orders before the Islamabad High Court, which, declined to interfere and upheld both the orders. Hence, the petition before the FCC.

The judgment said the order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the Federal Ombudsman, being without lawful jurisdiction, was void for want of jurisdiction and could not constitute a valid foundation for the subsequent order of the President dated 04.09.2024 or the impugned judgment of the High Court, insofar as they affirmed or maintained the same. “A decision rendered without jurisdiction does not acquire legal validity merely by its subsequent affirmation by an appellate, revisional or constitutional forum,” it added.

The judgment noted that the Respondent’s grievance was simply that he was entitled to an old-age pension under the Employees’ Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 and that the benefit had not been extended to him. The controversy, therefore, was not whether the petitioners had acted arbitrarily, capriciously, negligently, unjustly or otherwise contrary to law in the discharge of an administrative function. That question is one of statutory entitlement, falling within the specific adjudicatory framework of the Act, and cannot, by the mere use of the expression “maladministration,” be transmuted into a complaint falling within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

The claim advanced by Respondent No.1 falls directly and unequivocally within the ambit of section 33(e). Once the legislature has expressly entrusted the determination of such questions to the Institution, the Federal Ombudsman could not assume jurisdiction over the same controversy by resort to the general provisions of the Order.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026