FCCP: Rejected claims cannot be revived through repeated petitions

ISLAMABAD, (APP - UrduPoint / Pakistan Point News - 22nd Jul, 2026) The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that a claim once rejected cannot be revived by filing repeated petitions, and that constitutional petitions filed after an extraordinary delay are not maintainable.

The court further held that the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL), in its present corporate status, is not obligated to extend service benefits under Section 9-A of the Compulsory Military Service Ordinance, 1971.

A three-member bench of the Federal Constitutional Court, headed by Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, allowed the appeal filed by the Managing Director of OGDCL and others, and by a majority of 2-1 set aside the Sindh High Court's judgment dated October 26, 2022. Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah authored a dissenting opinion.

In its judgment, the court observed that Dr Captain (Retd) Nusrat Hussain's claim for counting his compulsory military service towards seniority and salary had already been rejected in 1994. Consequently, the filing of multiple subsequent representations did not create a fresh cause of action.

<?php /*?> <?php */?>

The court held that the law does not permit rejected claims to be revived through repeated applications.

The judgment further stated that OGDCL's legal status changed after it became a public limited company, and it therefore no longer falls within the category of institutions covered under Section 9-A of the Compulsory Military Service Ordinance, 1971.

The court also observed that under the Reorganisation Law, 2001, only those rights that were actually existing and legally recognized at the time of an institution's reorganisation remain protected. Rejected or unenforceable claims do not survive the process of reorganisation.

The bench further held that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and founded on principles of equity. A person who fails to pursue legal remedies for years cannot claim relief after an inordinate delay. It concluded that the constitutional petition, filed nearly 17 years later, was also barred on the grounds of delay and laches, rendering it not maintainable.