PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court has directed the Federal Board of Revenue to ensure an early decision on a complaint about the denial of the pension of its former employee to his widowed sister after his death.

A bench consisting of Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Shahid Khan disposed of a petition filed by Meena Afridi for declaring illegal the FBR’s act of depriving her of that pension and other benefits despite entitlement under the law and rules.

It directed the FBR chairman to decide the pending case in accordance with the law and rules and in light of a Supreme Court judgement on the matter, preferably within a month.

The court declared that the conduct of the respondent was a violation of the Constitution and rules and an abuse of power, which it couldn’t countenance.

Ex-employee’s sister claims right to his pension after his death

The petitioner’s counsel, Malik Shahbaz Khan, said that the petitioner was a widowed sister of Nadeem Khan Afridi, an assistant director (MIS) at the regional tax office of the FBR in Peshawar, and as he never married and died on Sept 13, 2021, after a service of 23 years, she was entitled to his pension.

He said that under the rules, the board conducted an inquiry and declared his client entitled to that pension and other benefits.

The lawyer, however, said the petitioner was denied that right by the department on the basis of an anonymous complaint lodged against her with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) about her alleged act of submitting fake documents to claim that pension.

The bench observed: “Undeniably, the petitioner is the widowed-sister of Nadeem Khan Afridi (late), who delivered 23-year-long service in the department, but it is astonishing that despite being entitled for family pension as per Compendium of Pension Rules and Orders vide section-II family pension, sub para (b) and Section 19(2) of the Civil servants Act, 1973, coupled with Clause (d) of Rule 4.8 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963, she has been deprived of her vested rights merely on basis of anonymous complaint received by the NAB authorities, which otherwise in view of the first inquiry report was proved to be frivolous and concocted.”

Referring to different laws, including the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the bench observed that there was no concept of an anonymous complaint, as there was a prerequisite for filing such a complaint, which required antecedents and credentials of the complaint along with an affidavit before initiating inquiry proceedings.

It referred to a 2017 judgement of the Supreme Court wherein it was declared that in the future, the head of the concerned department should be held liable for contempt of court if there was delay in finalising pension benefits cases of government servants, widows, or orphan children, and the matter was brought to the notice of the court.

The bench further observed that the record spoke loudly and clearly about the relationship of the petitioner, who was the real sister of the deceased, Nadeem Afridi.

The bench observed that an inquiry was initiated by the respondents on April 18, 2022, which was entrusted to an assistant commissioner and after due collection of evidence as accounts of the relevant SHO, vice chairman of the relevant union council, along with councillors of the respective ward.

It added that the inquiry proved that the petitioner was the legal heir of the deceased, and his legacy should be devolved upon her.

The bench observed that the competent authority had opted for the re-constitution of another fact-finding inquiry committee, which would be nothing but a sheer waste of time and multiplicity of the agonies of the petitioner.

Published in Dawn, May 1st, 2024