NTDC VS President of Pakistan etc

Form No: HCJD/C-121

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

W.P.No. 3953/2025

National Transmission and Dispatch Company

Versus

President of Pakistan and others

Petitioner by: Mr. Nauman Munir Paracha Advocate

Respondents by: Mr. Imran Farooq AAG Advocate

Mr. Mudassar Khalid Abbasi Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mr. Shah Khalid Advocate for respondent No.3

Date of Decision: 22.09.2026

P

JUDGMENT

UMAIR MAJEED MALIK, J: The petitioner through the instant petition has impugned the orders dated 18.07.2025 and 24.10.2024 passed by respondents No.1 and 2 respectively.

2.The facts relevant for adjudication of the listed petition are that respondent No.3 filed a complaint against the National Transmission and Dispatch Company for the delay in promotion alleging therein that in the seniority list, his name was replaced from Serial No. 6 to Serial No.9. Further the respondent No.3 prayed that NTDC Sukkur officers be directed to make a seniority list on the basis of date of joining as made

by other NTDC regions. Consequently impugned order dated 24.10.2024 was passed by respondent No.2 (Wafaqi Mohtasib) which was challenged by the petitioner through a representation filed in terms of Article 32 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983. However, the representation of the petitioner was also dismissed by respondent No.1 vide impugned order dated

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that assumption of jurisdiction by Wafaqi Mohtasib was without lawful authority and as per Article 9(2) of the President’s Order No.1 of 1983, matters relating to terms and conditions of service of employees stand expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of respondent No.2. The complaint filed by respondent No.3 falls within personal grievance relating to service of an employee and respondents No. 1 and 2 were, therefore, wrong in assuming the jurisdiction. Learned counsel further argued that petitioner was not notified of the hearing held before the Consultant (Legal Affairs) to the President of Pakistan on 02.07.2025 and notice of that hearing was served on the petitioner one day after the date of the hearing. The assumption of jurisdiction by respondents No.1 and 2 in a matter expressly barred by law rendering the impugned orders coram non judice, without lawful authority and liable to be set aside He relied on Peshawar Electric Supply Company Limited v. Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman), Islamabad (PLD 2016 SC 940). Learned counsel has further relied upon judgment of Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan passed in FCPLA No.464/2025 titled Ghulam Abbas Versus Telephone Industries of Pakistan and 2 others.

4.Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 argued that the impugned orders have been passed purely on merit and Wafaqi Mohtasib has the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order on the complaint of respondent No.3 as the seniority list was not prepared as per prescribed rules rather same was based on pick and choose. It is further argued that it was petitioner, who himself had filed representation assailing the order of Wafaqi Mohtasib before President Secretariat (Public) and he was the person who had to pursue its case before President Secretariat (Public), Islamabad. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 also vehemently supported the impugned order.

5.Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, respondents as well as learned AAG have been heard and the record perused with their able assistance.

6.The only issue requiring determination is whether Article 9 of the Order of 1983 confers jurisdiction on the Wafaqi Mohtasib to decide a complaint relating to the service matter of an employee of the petitioner.

Article 9 of the Order of 1983 provides:

“9. Jurisdiction, functions and power of the Mohtasib.-(1) The Mohtasib may, on a complaint by any aggrieved person, on a reference by the President, the Federal Council or the National Assembly, as the case may be, or on a motion of the Supreme Court or a High Court made during the course of any proceedings before it or of his own motion, undertake any investigation into any allegation of maladministration on the part of any Agency or any of its officers or employees:

Provided that the Mohtasib shall not have any jurisdiction to investigate or inquire into any matters which:

(a)are sub-judice before a court of competent jurisdiction or tribunal or board in Pakistan on the date of the receipt of a complaint, reference or motion by him; or

(b)relate to the external affairs of Pakistan or the relations or dealing of Pakistan with any foreign state or government; or

(c)relate to, or are connected with the defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, the military, naval and air forces of Pakistan, or the matters covered by the laws relating to those forces.

(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (1), the Mohtasib shall not accept for Investigation any complaint by or on behalf of a public servant or functionary concerning any matters relating to the Agency in which he is, or has been, working in respect of any personal grievance relating to his service therein.

(3)For carrying out the objectives of this Order and, in particular for ascertaining the root causes of corrupt practices and injustice, the Mohtasib may arrange for studies to be made or research to be conducted and may recommend appropriate steps for their eradication.

(4)The Mohtasib may set up regional offices as, when and where required.”

7.Article 9(1) of the Order of 1983 confers jurisdiction on the Wafaqi Mohtasib to investigate allegations of maladministration, as defined in Article 2(2) of the Order, on the part of an Agency or its officers or employees. Article 9(2), however, bars the Wafaqi Mohtasib from even accepting for investigation a complaint by or on behalf of a public servant or functionary concerning a personal grievance relating to his service in the Agency where he is or has been working.

8.This bar, and the scope of Article 9, has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an almost identical case, Peshawar

Electric Supply Company Limited v. Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman), Islamabad (PLD 2016 SC 940), where it was held that:

“Sub Article 2 of Article 9 clearly indicates that jurisdiction of Wafaqi Mohtasib is expressly excluded in cases of personal grievances of public servants or functionaries serving in any “Agency” in respect of the matters relating to their service.”

9.In substance, respondent No.3’s grievance entails adjudication of his service related matter which does not fall within the Wafaqi Mohtasib’s jurisdiction just because it is framed as an allegation of maladministration. In this regard, I am fortified by the view rendered by Honourable Federal Constitutional Court in F.C.P.L.A. No. 464/2025 “Ghulam Abbas Versus Telephone Industries of Pakistan & 2 Others” wherein it was held that:-

“7. In the present case, the issue raised by the petitioner before the respondent No. 3 unmistakably pertains to his personal grievance arising out of his service in T.I.P., particularly concerning his pensionary benefits. Despite the clear nature of the dispute, the respondent No. 3 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 legislative intent behind this exclusion is manifest: service matters and personal employment disputes are to be adjudicated by the competent fora specifically constituted for that purpose, and not by the Wafaqi Mohtasib. The respondent No. 3, however, lost sight of this fundamental statutory bar and assumed jurisdiction in a matter expressly excluded by law. Consequently, the orders referred to above are coram non judice,

having been passed without lawful authority, and are thus liable to be set aside.

12.For the foregoing reasons, it is concluded that the case of the petitioner, which pertains to his personal grievance relating to his service, clearly falls under the aforesaid sub-Article 2 of Article 9 of the Order of 1983 containing a bar on the jurisdiction of Wafaqi Mohtasib. The Wafaqi Mohtasib has wrongly assumed jurisdiction while entertaining the complaint of the petitioner and giving findings on it, which he could not do. Thus, the High Court correctly understood the controversy at hand and made a well- founded decision based on the relevant law on the issue. In its thorough analysis of the applicable law and the available facts, the High Court arrived at a sound and reasoned conclusion that is both legally correct and just. Hence, no illegality, perversity, or misreading or non-reading of evidence has been found in the impugned judgments. Accordingly, leave is refused, and the petition is dismissed.”

In view of the foregoing, Impugned Orders dated 18.07.2025 and 24.10.2024 are held to be passed without lawful authority and in excess of jurisdiction; the same are accordingly declared void ab initio and of no legal effect.

10.For the reasons mentioned above, the listed petition is allowed, and the impugned orders are set aside.

(UMAIR MAJEED MALIK)

JUDGE

Approved for reporting.

M.Abid Khan