Jokingjustice
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2016
- Messages
- 72
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
One Tariq Majeed from Hyderabad states DAWN 22 April 2016 that the Federal Ombudsman provided “free” justice but needs powers to deal with service matters eg pension, disciplinary action etc.
2. On return from China the then Federal Ombudsman Syed Usman Ali Shah at the airport was shy that the Chinese Ombudsman could remove even a Minister and wished similar powers. The senior intellectual and writer Muno Bhai on it wrote a marvelous piece entitled “Angels don’t require powers”. Munoo Bhai used the word “angel” on the background that Justice Usman Ali Shah only a few days earlier had defended his purchase in violation of government ban a high capacity car. His premise was that he was not an angle and that his “minor” violation of law was being taken note of ignoring that he provided justice to masses. In the press conference he denied existence of any tape recorder in his newly purchased car. After the press conference when the reporters surrounded parked car and fingered through windows towards the visibly installed tape recorder, he flew into rage and threatened contempt action.
3. Universally it is accepted that it was not a written two lines called the rule, law or the procedure but it is the man sitting on the chair who, if is God blessed with spirit of serving the humanity, delivered the true justice. The Federal Ombudsman started working in 1983 under a Law called P.O.I of 1982. It barred the Ombudsman from complaints from government employees against their employers which technically and legally stand as service matters. Fortunately the man who came on the seat, Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, was truly God fearing and public spirited. Remaining within the same written law he started taking pension complaints which were factually service related matters. He went to that extent that he ordered his staff to give priority to those complaints. Ministry of Defence and Foreign Affairs were kept out of his jurisdiction under this law. God fearing Justice Sardar Iqbal saying that he was an ombudsman not a judge, interpreted that his jurisdiction to the extent of defence/foreign policies & strategies, defence procurement, foreign relations etc stood barred and not at all as far as issues complained for related to the public. A commoner of Azad Kashmir had then not even in his dreams ever thought of complaining against non provision of a telephone connection. Justice Sardar Iqbal entertained complaints and provided relief without caring those telephone exchanges were under the Defence Ministry. He treated it a public related issue. The Ombudsman law provided right of revision appeal to the Federal Ombudsman against his earlier decision to the Government Agency. The man sitting on the chair, again Justice Sardar Iqbal, terming it unfair best towards one party only, he himself extended this right to a dis-satisfied complainant.
4. No ombudsman needs more powers. The existing powers are enough. The only need is the right man on the seat. T&T did not provide my home a phone directory. I purchased it. Ombudsman Sardar Iqbal got this amount refunded to me. Today PTCL is not providing me phone directory and present day Ombudsman refused last year even to register my complain on the plea that the complaint was of general in nature. Ombudsmen like Sardar Iqbal could do so, to the belief of this senior citizen, because no Rauf Klasras ever included the personal name of a person sitting on ombudsman chair then in his column or talk show.
2. On return from China the then Federal Ombudsman Syed Usman Ali Shah at the airport was shy that the Chinese Ombudsman could remove even a Minister and wished similar powers. The senior intellectual and writer Muno Bhai on it wrote a marvelous piece entitled “Angels don’t require powers”. Munoo Bhai used the word “angel” on the background that Justice Usman Ali Shah only a few days earlier had defended his purchase in violation of government ban a high capacity car. His premise was that he was not an angle and that his “minor” violation of law was being taken note of ignoring that he provided justice to masses. In the press conference he denied existence of any tape recorder in his newly purchased car. After the press conference when the reporters surrounded parked car and fingered through windows towards the visibly installed tape recorder, he flew into rage and threatened contempt action.
3. Universally it is accepted that it was not a written two lines called the rule, law or the procedure but it is the man sitting on the chair who, if is God blessed with spirit of serving the humanity, delivered the true justice. The Federal Ombudsman started working in 1983 under a Law called P.O.I of 1982. It barred the Ombudsman from complaints from government employees against their employers which technically and legally stand as service matters. Fortunately the man who came on the seat, Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, was truly God fearing and public spirited. Remaining within the same written law he started taking pension complaints which were factually service related matters. He went to that extent that he ordered his staff to give priority to those complaints. Ministry of Defence and Foreign Affairs were kept out of his jurisdiction under this law. God fearing Justice Sardar Iqbal saying that he was an ombudsman not a judge, interpreted that his jurisdiction to the extent of defence/foreign policies & strategies, defence procurement, foreign relations etc stood barred and not at all as far as issues complained for related to the public. A commoner of Azad Kashmir had then not even in his dreams ever thought of complaining against non provision of a telephone connection. Justice Sardar Iqbal entertained complaints and provided relief without caring those telephone exchanges were under the Defence Ministry. He treated it a public related issue. The Ombudsman law provided right of revision appeal to the Federal Ombudsman against his earlier decision to the Government Agency. The man sitting on the chair, again Justice Sardar Iqbal, terming it unfair best towards one party only, he himself extended this right to a dis-satisfied complainant.
4. No ombudsman needs more powers. The existing powers are enough. The only need is the right man on the seat. T&T did not provide my home a phone directory. I purchased it. Ombudsman Sardar Iqbal got this amount refunded to me. Today PTCL is not providing me phone directory and present day Ombudsman refused last year even to register my complain on the plea that the complaint was of general in nature. Ombudsmen like Sardar Iqbal could do so, to the belief of this senior citizen, because no Rauf Klasras ever included the personal name of a person sitting on ombudsman chair then in his column or talk show.
