' SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.---This judgment will also dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 19803 of 1999, 1025 of 2000, 2 of 1999, 300 of 1999, 617 of 1999, 22674 of 1999, 17968 of 1999, 19202 of 1999, 1026 of 2000, 738 of 2000, 11390 of 2000 and 12773 of 2000. The petitioners in all these cases are retired General Managers and Chief Engineers, Wapda, while the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 617 of 1999, retired as Director General. Their case is that in accordance with the Transport Policy of the Wapda, they were entitled to purchase the vehicles under their use on the depreciated value on their retirement.
Before, however, they retired, the policy of purchase of option-I car by the retiring officers was withdrawn. After their retirement they were called upon to surrender the vehicles. The grievance of the petitioners is directed against the policy decision taken in the meeting held on 16-10-1998 followed by office order, dated 30-10-1998. The relevant facts bearing on the issue are noted hereunder.
2. According to the office order, dated 7-10-1987 described as the Transport Policy of 1987, the Water and Power Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the. Authority) decided to provide 1000 C.C. Chauffeur driven cars to the Managing Directors and General Managers for official and private use with a petrol quota of 175 liters per month. As far as the Chief Engineers and the Officers equivalent are concerned, 800 C.C. Cars without a chauffeur, petrol quota of 160 liters per month and an amount of Rs.4000 per year, as maintenance limit, with an increase of 10% every year was allowed for official and private use. The amount was re-imburseable on actual expenditure basis. This was described as "option-I". Under the second option a chauffeur driven car was to be provided with a petrol ceiling of 150 Liter per month for official use only. This order did not provide that the officers to whom vehicles are allocated would be entitled to purchase them at the time of retirement.
' This policy was supplemented by the office order, dated 24-10-1987, according to which, the officers of the rank of Chief Engineers and equivalent were entitled to buy option-I cars on the existing, depreciation formula after the expiry of the car life. This circular referred to the options indicated in the office order, dated 7-10-1987 and it was stated that the option exercised shall be final. As far as the Managing Directors and General Managers are concerned, they were allowed to purchase the cars under their use at the time of their retirement on a price to be assessed by the Committee. This was vide office order, dated 27-1-1991. Again ride office order, dated 14-7-1997 the entitled Wapda Officers were allowed to purchase the Vehicles on their retirement from service on the depreciated value which was indicated in the aforesaid order. In the meeting of the Authority held on 16-10-1998 it was noted that the Federal Government had imposed ban on purchase of vehicles and therefore, there was a need to discontinue the existing policy of sale of option-I cars to the entitled officers. It was, accordingly, decided to withdraw the facility of purchase of option-I cars with immediate effect. This was followed by office order, dated 30-10-1998. Since the decision aforesaid referred to withdrawal of concession to purchase of option-I cars (which were provided to the Chief Engineers and equivalent), the aforesaid policy was further clarified by office order, dated 14-12-1998, according to which, the entitled officers referred to in the office order, dated 30- 10-1998 meant to all officers of BS.20 and above.
3. The learned counsel of the petitioners have contended that according to the office order, dated 24-10-1987 the option once exercised was final and since the petitioners had exercised option-I, it was not revocable by either of the parties. It is further contended that the policy decision referred to in the office order, dated .30-10-1998 could not be applied with retrospectively effect. The principles of locus poenitentiae and legitimate's expectancy were also pressed. Reliance was placed on Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. And others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (1992 SCM R 1652). It was further contended that despite the aforesaid decision, in the meeting of the Authority held on 5th December, 1998, one Meraj Ahmad, Managing Director, was allowed to purchase the car on his retirement and therefore, the petitioners have been un-fairly discriminated against. Reliance was heavily placed on the judgment, dated 28-3-2002 of a learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 756 of 2001 according to which, the petitioners therein were entitled to purchase/retain the vehicles in accordance with the office orders, dated 7-10-1987 and 24-10-1987.
4. Mr. M. Ilyas Khan, Advocate, represents the Authority. He submits that based on the precedent of one Meraj Ahmed, Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi, approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 11567 of 1999 which was dismissed vide order, dated 30-7-1999. Letter, dated 22-11-2002 of the Transport Directorate of Wapda was also produced. According to which, in the meeting of the Authority held on 8-10-2002 it was decided to withdraw the vehicle from Mr. Meraj Ahmad. He further contends that option to purchase a car by a retiring official was in the nature of a concession based on a policy decision and by the change of policy before the retirement of the petitioners, it cannot be said that they have suffered any injury to maintain this constitutional petition. It is further maintained that although the petitioners had foregone the facility of the driver under option-I, yet they used the car for private use as well and therefore, they had availed the benefits if at all in any case they had incurred some expenditure on the maintenance of the cars over and above the prescribed limit. According to him, the option was given to the employees to choose one of the two which was based on policy decision and the policy being subject to variation, it was not a case of revocation of the option by the Authority nor according to him, the principle of locus poenitentiae was attracted.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The officers involved in these petitions retired either as Chief Engineers or as General Managers and in one case as the Director General. Writ Petitions No.19803 of 1999, 300 of 1999, 22674 of 1999, 16261 of 2000, 738 of 2000, 11390 of 2000, 17968 of 1999 and 19202 of 1999 are by General Managers, three are by Chief Engineers and one by a Director General. It may be noted that according to the office orders, dated 7-10-1987 and 24-10-1987 the two options were given to the officers of the rank of Chief Engineers and equivalent who were allowed to purchase the cars allocated to them, while similar facility was allowed to the officers of the ranks of Managing Directors and General Managers vide office order, dated 27-1-1991. According to the decision of the Authority in the meeting held on 16-10-1998, the facility of purchase of option-I cars was withdrawn. Option-I cars are the cars which were allocated to the Chief Engineers and equivalent. Therefore, the said decision could only be applied to the case of Chief Engineers and equivalent and not to officers of the rank of Managing Directors and General Managers in whose case there was no option and they were allowed to purchase the cars under their use after retirement. The facility of purchase of cars by the retiring Managing Directors and General Managers provided in the office order, dated 27-1- 1991 had the backing of the decision of the authority and unless the said decision was recalled, the officers who retired as General Manager or Managing Directors, could not be refused this concession on the basis of the circular letter, dated 30-10-1998. The office order, dated 14-12-1998 had the effect of supplementing and enlarging the scope of the decision of the Authority in the meeting held on 16-10-1998, therefore, the office order, dated 14-12-1998 could not be applied to the MDs and GMs. The letter, dated 14-12-1998 which was issued by the Director General, does not show that it had the backing of the decision of Authority, Therefore, the petitioners who retired as General Managers were entitled to purchase the cars on their retirement irrespective of the fact whether they were retaining 800 CC cars or 1000 CC cars because the decision of the Authority in the meeting, dated 16-10-1998 related only to withdrawal of option-I cars and that decision, as noted above, was applicable to the case of Chief Engineers only. Nothing was placed on the record by the respondents to show that the Authority ever took a decision to withdraw the facility of purchase of cars by the General Managers and Managing Directors.
6. As far as the Chief Engineers are concerned, the decision of the Authority in the meeting held on 16-10-1998 clearly applied to their cases. The facility to purchase a car was in the nature of a concession governed by a policy decision which was subject to variation and the petitioners (the Chief Engineers) could not be heard to say that by change of the policy any of their vested rights was impaired. The contention of the learned counsel that the decision in case of Chief Engineers was being applied retrospectively has no merit because all of them retired after the policy decision, dated 16-10-1998.
7. I had the benefit of going through the judgment of the learned Peshawar High Court. With outmost respect, I am not persuaded by the view taken by the learned Peshawar High Court. As: far as the observation of the learned Peshawar, High Court that the option could, not be revoked unilaterally by the Authority is concerned, the offer: for one of the two options to the Chief Engineers was based on a policy decision and it could not be said that the Authority had denuded itself to vary the policy with regard to the disposal of vehicles. Unless a policy decision violates an express provision of law, it is not within the reach of this Court to review it while exercising constitutional jurisdiction. The learned D.B. Of the Peshawar, High Court also pressed the principle of locus poenitentiae and I say with the utmost respect that the principle was not applicable because before the petitioners was entitled to purchase A the cars at the time of their retirement, the policy was amended and no decisive step had been taken till then. As far as allocation of vehicle to Miraj Ahmad is concerned, the Authority has 'already withdrawn the decision in his case. Therefore, .As far as the petitioners, who retired. As Chief Engineers are concerned, no exception could be taken to the impugned decision of the Authority. However, as far as the petitioners, who retired as General Managers, are concerned the decision of the Authority in the meeting held on 16-10-1998 was not, prime facie, applicable in their case and, therefore, their case is required to be reconsidered by the Authority. I have refrained myself to determine entitlement of the General Managers to purchase of cars because the entire relevant material has not been placed on the record including the minutes, if any, on which the letter, dated 14-12-1998 was based and the two policy circulars of 1992 referred to in the order, dated 14-7-1997.
8. For what has been stated above Writ Petitions. Nos. 1025 of 2000, 2 of 1999, 617 of 1999 and 12773 of 2000 are dismissed, while Writ Petitions Nos. 19803 of 1999, 300 of 1999, 22674 of 1999, 17968 of 1999, 19202 of 1999, 1026 of 2000, 738 of 2000 and 11390 of 2000 are allowed and in view of my observations recorded in the preceding paragraph, their cases are remitted to the Authority for reconsideration in the light of the observations made in this judgment. No order as to costs.