Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the VSS package offered to the petitioner by the PTCL in the year 2007 failed to take account of the pensionary rights and gratuity to which the petitioner is entitled under the terms and conditions of his service, Instead the petitioner has been paid amounts under the headings of severance pay, separation bonus, housing allowance and medical benefits. None of these heads of payment have any nexus with the legal rights of the petitioner to receive payment of gratuity and pension. He reinforces his argument with reference to the contents of 1997 VSS package offered by the PTCL to its employees at that time. The package contained a payment under a formula base on the pensionary entitlement of the employees in question. Submits that the new formula and nomenclature adopted by the PTCL for the 2007 VSS package is discriminatory for excluding pensionary payments.
2. When the learned counsel was asked about the injury or prejudice suffered by the petitioner on account of the impugned formula for determining the VSS benefits, he submitted that he .had not calculated the same. In a case where no loss injury or prejudice is established on record by the petitioner, the relief prayed is entirely academic and speculative upon which no writ can be granted. Furthermore, the grievance of the petitioner which is prima facie based on Article 25 of the Constitution, fails to identify legal obligation that mandates the specific emoluments claimed by the petitioner, for inclusion in a VSS package, that are alleged to be lacking presently. Without a comparative compilation of financial and legal elements of the two VSS packages the allegation of illegal omission and discrimination in the impugned VSS package is a non-starter. Finally, the petitioner has already accepted the impugned VSS package and received full benefits thereunder; the bar of estoppel requires a compelling explanation of cause to maintain the instant challenge.
The petition is silent, evasive or vague in the foregoing respects and lacks a perceptible legal right or obligation for enforcement.
3. In the light of the above this petition is dismissed.