' DR. SAJID QURESHI, J.--- The petitioner joined the service of the Regional Development Finance Corporation (R.D.F.C.) and then was promoted to an Assistant Vice-President on 1-4-1999. In December, 2001 R.D.F.C. Emerged with Small Business Finance Corporation (S.B.F.C.) forming a single entity through promulgation of R.D.F.C. And S.B.F.C. (Amalgamation and Conversion)
Ordinance, 2001 and formed SME Bank Ltd. The said Bank then floated a scheme called Voluntary Separation Scheme (V.S.S.) , 2001 for its employees. The SME Bank Ltd. Is a public limited company and employees were transferred to this newly created body on the same terms and conditions as they had held in their previous legal entities. The petitioner was offered the V.S.S. And as per lis, the petitioner fulfilled all the requirement and formalities. However he was subjected to inquiry proceeding against which, the petitioner proceeded to the F.S.T. Which set aside the order of inquiry and after clearance by the said Bank, the petitioner then received the V.S.S. Benefits. The contention of the petitioner is that the V.S.S. Benefits should have been calculated in accordance with the last pay drawn.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above facts and stated that in the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, the matter was decided in Civil Petitions Nos.2001, 2019 of 2000, 185 of 2001 and 2020 of 2000 and others wherein it was declared that the employees are entitled for the grant of all pensionary benefits on the basis of last pay drawn and date of retirement. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the F.S.T. And appeal was fixed for regular hearing. Meanwhile, the Honourable Supreme Court vide its judgment, dated 27-6-2006 declared section 2-A inserted in F.S.T. Act, 1973 as partially ultra-virus and the pending appeal was abated.
3. The learned counsel contended that he has suffered financial loss due to deliberate wrong calculation of benefits of (V.S.S.) on the part of Bank authorities out of sheer mala fide, that there were violations of Articles 4 and 25 of .The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The learned counsel referred to the section 7 of R.D.F.C. And S.P.F.C. (Amalgamation and Conversion)
Ordinance, 2001 which stated that the terms and conditions of the petitioner are protected and could not change adversely. The learned counsel relied on number of case-law 2001 SCMR 884, 2005 SCMR 235, 2008 PLC (C.S.) 134, 2007 PLC (C.S.) 418, all stating that the payments of V.S.S. Should be made upon calculation of the last pay drawn. The counsel contended that since the Bank was a public company owned by Federal Government, therefore, the writ was maintainable.
He relied on PLD 2002 SC 1079.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the writ is not maintainable since there are no statutory rules. That, this is an evidence/factual exercise. He relied on 1988 SCMR 988 in which the disputed facts cannot be determined in a writ petition which is not within the jurisdiction of this Court. Further that there is an alternative remedy available before other competent forum and that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person in accordance with Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. He further argued that this petition suffers from the latches. The V.S.S. Benefits were accepted by the petitioner fully on 29-4-2003 vide letter, dated the same addressed to the Branch Manager (SME Bank Ltd.) Larkana which reads inter alia:-- "I, hereby acknowledge the receipt of Cheque No,309849 dated 29-4-2003 for Rs,1,707,130 (Rupees seventeen hundred seven thousand one hundred thirty only) being the full and final settlement of Voluntary Separation Scheme V.S.S.-2001 benefits. I have no further claim of any kind except payment of provident fund against SME Bank Ltd."
' Therefore, there can be no claim against the Bank, there was a full and final settlement of V.S.S. Benefits. He further contended that the Miscellaneous Petition No,614 of 2003 was disposed of by F.S.T. On 5-5-2004, which dismissed the petitioner's contention of further V.S.S. Benefits. The learned counsel also stated that the full and final settlement was received by the petitioner on 29th of April, 2003, it was nearly 1-1/2 years later that the petitioner moved to the F.S.T. (the appeal was later abated). The petitioner had not made any formal representation or request to the Bank for clarification or re-assessm ent so that an inquiry could have taken place on actual amount received by him. The learned counsel for the respondent cited a list of judgments namely PLD 1996 SC 445 titled as Zia Abidin v. Multan Central Cooperative in which since this was a Bank, there was no right to invoke writ jurisdiction, PLD 1959 SC 210 in which the writ was not a proper remedy in case of a bank employee, that the bank is not a public office. He also relied on PLD 1976 Kar. 778 and PLD 1984 SC 194 in which the writ is maintainable only where there is violation of statutory rules. Further reliance on this point was made in cases 1988 SCMR 597, 1990 SCMR 1404, 1991 SCMR 2434. He reiterated that the principle of master and servant is attracted in this case, he relied on Anis-ur- Rehman v. P.A.I.C. 1994 SCMR 2232. He contended that again the writ was not maintainable against a privatized Bank, reliance was made on 2005 MLD 1798.
5. Arguments heard. Record/documents perused and case-law examined.
6. From the perusal of record as well as through the arguments it transpires that the Voluntary Separation Scheme is a purely contractual matter between the Bank and its employees. The scheme was offered to the petitioner and petitioner duly accepted it as a full and final settlement.
Looking at the status of the Bank, it appears that it does not have any statutory rules which governs the terms and conditions of service of office employees which indicates the petitioner does not have a clear legal right and a question of breach, therefore, does not arise. The petitioner while accepting the final payment of the V.S.S., made no reservations, dispute or grievance as to the amount that was given, hence indicating that he was satisfied with the final payment cheque. The issue A of the amount calculated on the last pay drawn appears to, be an afterthought, which is reflected in the delay in the filing before the competent forum (1-1/2 years later). This matter relates to the dispute of facts, calculation based upon service benefits and so on a concluded contract.
This is not a suit for recovery of monies for which there is another forum available to the petitioner.
The relationship of master and servants is also drawn here and that the petitioner can also seek relief before another forum. He can fully endorse his case with full facts and figures which are supported and favoured by a large number of case-law cited above before a lower/trial Court.
However, the remedy is not before, this Court nor this forum. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.