PARC VS President of Pakistan etc

Form No: HCJD/C-121

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

W.P.No. 4121/2024

Pakistan Agriculture Research Council Versus President of Pakistan and others and W.P.No. 4122/2024

Pakistan Agriculture Research Council Versus President of Pakistan and others

Petitioner by: Mr. Nauman Munir Paracha, Advocate.

Respondents by: Mr. Imran Farooq, AAG.

Mr. Ahsan Jahangir Khan, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Dates of Hearing: 07.09.2026.

JUDGMENT

UMAIR MAJEED MALIK, J: Listed petition and

W.P.No.4122/2024 entail common questions of law and fact besides the parties, therefore, being decided through this single judgment.

Facts of W.P. No. 4121 of 2024

2.The facts relevant for adjudication of the listed petition are that Dr. Farida Iftikhar (deceased), mother of respondent No.3, was a regular employee of the National Agricultural Research Centre, Islamabad, and died in January 2016 while serving as Principal Scientific Officer (BPS-

19)at the Honeybee Research Institute, Islamabad. Following her death, respondent No.3 has been receiving family pension from the Pakistan

Agricultural Research Council (“PARC”), and she has claimed entitlement to appointment in PARC under the Prime Minister's Assistance Package (“PMAP”) as a daughter of an employee who died in service. Her request to PARC for redressal went unheeded, and she filed a complaint before the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib, alleging that her application for appointment under the PMAP, submitted on 16.10.2023, remained under process without resolution. Respondent No.2, after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint, vide order dated 21.02.2024 (“Impugned Order I”), holding that:

“the mal-administration on the part of the Agency is established as defined in Article 2(2) of P.O. 1 of 1983. Consequently, this complaint is accepted under Regulation 23(4) of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Investigation and Disposal of Complaints) Regulations 2013, and the Agency is recommended to appoint the complainant under the PMAP as per Establishment Division's instructions fed henceforth.”

Facts of W.P. No. 4122 of 2024

3.The relevant facts are that the family pension admissible to respondent No.3 in respect of her deceased mother, namely Dr. Farida Iftikhar, has regularly been paid by PARC to the respondent No.3, but the remaining dues payable under the PMAP were not released, and the matter remained pending. Respondent No.3's approach to the petitioner for release of these dues went unheeded, and she filed a complaint before the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib alleging unjustified delay in payment of her dues under the PMAP. Respondent No.2, after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint, vide order dated 11.08.2023 (“Impugned Order II”), in the following terms:

“the case is referred to the chairman, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council in terms of Regulation 23(I)(z) of the Wafaqi Mohtasib (Investigation and Disposal of Complaints) Regulations, 2013 for redressal of the complainant's grievance at his end after availability of funds in the first quarter.”

4.Aggrieved by Impugned Orders I and II, the petitioner filed representations before respondent No.1, the worthy President, who, vide consolidated order dated 12.12.2024 (“Impugned Order III”), dismissed them. Hence, the instant petitions.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had specifically raised a jurisdictional objection before respondents No.1 and 2, which has not been decided in the impugned orders. He argued that, under Article 9(2) of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 (“Order of 1983”), the Wafaqi Mohtasib lacks jurisdiction to investigate any complaint by or on behalf of a public servant concerning a personal grievance of service-related matter against the Agency in which he is or has been working. He further argued that respondent No.3's grievance, though framed as one of maladministration, is in substance a claim to service benefits of her deceased mother's employment with the petitioner under the PMAP, and is accordingly excluded from the Wafaqi Mohtasib's jurisdiction under Article 9(2), ibid; where jurisdiction is expressly barred by law, no question of maladministration arising from the underlying grievance can be adjudicated by that forum, and respondent No.2 therefore proceeded without lawful authority. He further argued that, although respondent

No.3 applied for appointment on 16.10.2023 and her case was under process at the time she approached respondent No.2, and her eventual appointment in PARC was made independently of, and not pursuant to, Impugned Order-I; the objection that the petitions have thus become infructuous is misconceived, since respondent No.3's appointment does not cure a want of jurisdiction, and the very assumption of jurisdiction by the Wafaqi Mohtasib, along with the proceedings taken pursuant to it, stands assailed as being without lawful authority and coram non judice. He relied on Peshawar Electric Supply Company Limited v.

Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman), Islamabad (PLD 2016 SC 940).

6.Learned counsel for respondent No.3 argued that she had approached the Wafaqi Mohtasib for payment of pension, G.P. Fund, Lump Sum Grant, Benevolent Fund Grant, House Rent Allowance, Plot Payment, Marriage Grant, educational expenses, and appointment against posts in BPS-1 to BPS-15, all under the PMAP applicable to families of deceased employees, who died during the service. He argued that these are not, in substance, her deceased mother's service benefits, but benefits independently available to respondent No.3 under PMAP, as a daughter of an employee who died in service, and therefore fall within the Wafaqi Mohtasib's jurisdiction, Article 9(2) of the Order of 1983 being inapplicable. He submits that the petitioner has itself appointed respondent No.3 and paid the family pension, G.P. Fund, Lump Sum Grant, and Benevolent Fund Grant, and has sought time to extend the remaining PMAP benefits; since the petitioner has thus complied with Impugned Order-I and undertaken to implement

Impugned Orders II and III, the petitions have become infructuous and are liable to be dismissed.

7.Learned AAG submits that, since the petitioner has appointed respondent No.3 in implementation of Impugned Order-I, and has undertaken to implement Impugned Orders II and III, the listed petitions have become infructuous and are liable to be dismissed.

8.Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.3, and learned AAG have been heard, and the record perused with their able assistance.

9.The only issue requiring determination is whether Article 9 of the Order of 1983 confers jurisdiction on the Wafaqi Mohtasib to decide complaints relating to the service benefits of deceased employees, which are available to her family members, under the PMAP. 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.”

10.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.

11.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.”

12.In substance, respondent No.3's sought enforcement of her deceased mother's service benefits under the PMAP. Where a grievance necessarily entails adjudication of such a service-related entitlement, it does not fall within the Wafaqi Mohtasib's jurisdiction merely because it is framed as an allegation of maladministration. This Court reached the same conclusion in W.P. No. 268 of 2024, National Transmission and Dispatch Company Limited v. Federation of Pakistan and others, setting aside orders passed by the Wafaqi Mohtasib on an identical jurisdictional premise, in a case involving the personal grievance of a deceased employee's widow claiming his service-related benefits under the PMAP. In view of the foregoing, Impugned Orders I, II, and III, dated 21.02.2024, 11.08.2023, and 12.12.2024, are held to be passed without lawful authority and in excess of jurisdiction; they are accordingly declared void ab initio and of no legal effect.

13.For the reasons mentioned above, the listed petitions are allowed, and the impugned orders are set aside.

(UMAIR MAJEED MALIK)

JUDGE

Announced in open Court on __/09/2026.

JUDGE

Shafqat*/