Federal Ombudsman can’t entertain public servant’s pensionary matters: FCC

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) ruled that the Federal Ombudsman under Section 9 (2) of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib Order, 1983 is not empowered to entertain and proceed with the public servant’s pensionary matters.

A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, deciding against the Peshawar High Court (PHC) judgment, declared that Wafaqi Mohtasib (Federal Ombudsman) passed the order in favour of complaint for pensionary benefits without lawful authority.

The petitioner, an employee of Telephone Industries of Pakistan (T.I.P), upon attaining the age of superannuation, retired on 31.03.1998. The T.I.P. did not fully finalise his pension case, as the cost of living allowance at the rate of 7 percent of pay was not included in his emoluments for the purpose of recalculating his pension with effect from the date of his retirement. The restoration of the commuted portion of the pension, as well as, the grant of annual increases in accordance with the pension rules, was not allowed to the petitioner.

READ ALSO: Implementing govt policies is not job of courts: Federal Constitutional Court

He; therefore, filed a complaint before the Wafaqi Mohtasib. The Chief Financial Officer of the T.I.P. voluntarily recorded a written undertaking that his pension issues would be resolved within 30 to 45 days. When the T.I.P failed to honour its commitment, the petitioner approached the Wafaqi Mohtasib, which directed the T.I.P. to place the matter before its Board of Directors in the next meeting and to determine a specific date for payment of the amount due to the petitioner.

The T.I.P. against these orders preferred a representation before President of Pakistan that was dismissed on the ground of limitation vide order dated 08.06.2023. The T.I.P being aggrieved approached the PHC by filing a writ petition under Article 199. The High Court set aside the impugned judgment of Wafaqi Mohtasib. Hence, the present petition before the FCC.

The FCC judgment, authored by Justice Rizvi, said although the petitioner may have had a genuine grievance regarding his pensionary benefits against T.I.P, the pivotal question requiring determination is whether he could lawfully invoke the jurisdiction of the Wafaqi Mohtasib for redressal of such grievance.

The judgment further said that the Wafaqi Mohtasib is a statutory institution established under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 to investigate and redress complaints of maladministration against Federal Government ‘agencies’, as defined in Section 2(1) of the Order of 1983. It provides an expeditious, inexpensive, and informal forum for citizens seeking relief against arbitrary, unjust, or oppressive administrative actions of federal functionaries.

It noted that despite the clear nature of the dispute, the Wafaqi Mohtasib entertained the complaint and proceeded to issue directions to the T.I.P. to resolve the petitioner’s pensionary matter within the stipulated period. Such action is in direct contravention of Article 9 (2) of the Order of 1983, which expressly mandates that the Wafaqi Mohtasib shall not accept for investigation any complaint made by or on behalf of a public servant or functionary in respect of any matter relating to the Agency in which he is, or has been, serving, where the grievance concerns his personal service affairs.

The judgment also said that Wafaqi Mohtasib lost sight of this fundamental statutory bar and assumed jurisdiction in a matter expressly excluded by law. Consequently, the orders of Wafaqi Mohtasib are coram non judice, having been passed without lawful authority, and are thus liable to be set aside.

Justice Rizvi wrote that as T.I.P. did not object to the jurisdiction of the Wafaqi Mohtasib at the relevant time; therefore, is now estopped from challenging the same. The judgment said jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial forum by consent, acquiescence, waiver, or conduct of the parties. “An order passed without lawful authority is void ab initio and remains a nullity in the eye of law, irrespective of the parties’ consent, waiver, or subsequent conduct,” it added.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026