1. ' GULZAR AHMED, J.---Through this petition, petitioner has made the following prayer: "It is most respectfully prayed that this honourable Court may graciously be pleased to declare that the order passed on 30-6-2007, separating the Petitioner from the service of the Bank is illegal, void, unconstitutional and against principle of Law and violation of the Rule of the National Bank of Pakistan, Staff Service Rules, 1980.
(2) Direct the respondents to grant extension of service and permit the Petitioner to continue his service beyond 30-6-2007.
(3) Direct the respondents to pay gratuity, pension and other facilities to the Petitioner as are admissible to other employees of the Bank.
(4) Direct the respondents to pay encashment/of Leave for one year as given to other employees.
(5) Pass any other order/s which this honourable Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
2. ' It is contended by Mr. Umar Farooq Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner was appointed as a part time Medical Officer by the respondent, National Bank of Pakistan but he was a permanent employee and was also granted increments and other benefits of permanent employee that of a Senior Vice President and that the previous Medical Officer Dr. K.B.
3. Mody was allowed to work upto the age of 86. He has contended that petitioner's service could not have been terminated.
4. ' Mr. Chaudhry Muhammad Ashraf Khan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has contended that the petitioner was not a permanent employee but only a part time retained Medical Officer on retainer-ship fee. He contended that merely by conferring of status of Senior Vice President and extending of monetary benefits will not make the petitioner a permanent employee. He has also contended that all payments have been made to the petitioner on his separation rather additional payments have also been made to him. He has contended that petitioner has no right to be reinstated in the bank service.
5. ' We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and have gone through the record.
6. ' Brief fact of the matter, as alleged in the petition, are that petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer by respondent in the year 1988 and his service was confirmed and was promoted as Vice President. He was serving as Senior Vice President until 30-6-2007 when he was separated from the service of the respondent and was relieved of his charge. In the year 2002 he was given meritorious service cash award of one month salary and that before relieving from the service he was not given notice of one year which is given to permanent employees of the law( before retirement. It is further alleged that previous Senior Medical Officer Dr. K.B. Mody served with the respondent till the age of 86 years and respondent gave extension in service to other employees beyond 60 years service but such extension was not given to the petitioner and in this regard petitioner was discriminated. The petitioner has further alleged that he has not been paid pension, gratuity and other benefits of retirement including encashment of leave and that he, has been discriminated and has been relieved from the service without any benefit and that the order of relieving him is against the principles of natural justice and in violation of National Bank of Pakistan (Staff Service)
7. Rules 1980. The respondent has filed legal objections and comments in which the claim of the petitioner has been denied. Petitioner has filed cross-objections.
8. ' Through respondent's letter dated 6-2-1988 the petitioner was appointed as part time Medical Officer for medical treatment of Executives/Officers/Clerical/non-clerical staff and their family members. It was provided in the letter that the petitioner will be paid consolidated retainer-ship fee of Rs,1,500 per month without payment of any allowances, fringe benefits, facilities etc. The letter further provided that the petitioner will be required to attend the Bank's Dispensary, Head Office, Kara-di daily on full working days from 1-00 p.m. To 4-30 p.m. And half working day from 11-30 to 1- 30 p.m. The letter further stipulated that appointment will be of purely temporary nature and bank reserves right to cancel the appointment at any time without assigning any reason and without any notice. Petitioner accepted such letter of appointment and gave joining report on 7-2-1988.
9. Through letter dated 30-6-2007 the petitioner was informed that Operations Committee in its 73rd meeting held on 12-7-2005 has decided to separate him from bank service w.e.f, 30-6-2007 and accordingly he was relieved from bank service from 30-6-2007. In recognition of petitioner service the petitioner was given separation package that is house rent and utility for six months as allowed to Senior Vice President of regular cadre on retirement on superannuation, bank's car to be sold to him as allowed to retired Senior Vice President and honorarium in lieu of pension and benevolent fund Rs,5,00,000 in lump sum. The petitioner was also given facility of onetime payment of petrol ceiling for six months and one time lump sum payment of Rs,2,50,000 in lieu of medical facility (self/spouse). All these payments and benefits seem to have been received by the petitioner.
10. ' Although it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was a permanent employee of the respondent but he has not placed on the record any letter or order of the respondent which may show that at any time during his whole employment from 1988 till his separation on 30-6-2007 he was confirmed in employment of the respondent. Petitioner himself has filed with the petition as annexure letter dated 6-2-2008 by which he was appointed as part time Medical Officer on retainer-ship fee of Rs,1500/-per month and though with the passage of time his retainer-ship fee has been increased and he has also been given status of Senior Vice President but his status as part time retained Medical Officer continued until is separation. The separation of the petitioner from his very pleadings in the petition appears to have been taken place at the age of 60 years which seems to be the age of retirement of the bank employees and as to whether the petitioner has any right to continue further employment with the respondent, the only fact asserted by the counsel for the petitioner was that Dr. K.B. Mody was allowed to serve up to the age of 86 years. It may noted that Dr. Mody was also separated as Senior Medical Officer of the respondent on 14-8-2005 and was given similar benefit as extended to the petitioner and in the same document it mentioned that no. Doctor at Headquarter Dispensary shall be allowed to render service beyond the age of 60 years. Such document is attached by the petitioner with the petition at page 39 and apparently petitioner has raised no grievance at the time when such age of separation of doctor was fixed by the respondent. Merely allowing Dr. K.B. Mody to serve as Senior Medical Officer up to the age of 86 years in itself will not furnish ground to the petitioner either of claiming discrimination or for extension of his own service as the employment of the petitioner being purely of temporary nature or of contractual nature did not confer upon him any right of being provided extension in service. In any case it is within the domain and discretion of the management to grant extension in service to a particular employee, which domain and discretion of the management cannot be questioned; more so, where the case is of a temporary/contractual employee.
11. ' Through reference to the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1980 has been made in the petition but counsel for the petitioner did not cite any rule which may have been violated by the respondent. In order to maintain a petition, petitioner has to demonstrate that he was governed by statutory rules of service and that while terminating or separating him from the service, the employer has violated such rules and if such fact of violation is established, the Court will exercise its constitutional jurisdiction and come to rescue the employee who has-been wronged. In the present case although the petitioner has alleged in the petition that he ought to have given one year notice but neither any rule of giving of such notice was cited before us nor apparently any such rule had application to the petitioner. In any case, the rules applicable to the employees of the respondent are National Bank of Pakistan (Staff Service) rules, 1973 which have been held by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan to be the statutory rules and the Rules of 1980 have been held to be not statutory. Reference in this regard is made to the case of National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal 1993 SCM R 105.
12. ' From the above discussion, the only thing that is established is that petitioner was appointed as part time Medical Officer on retainership fee which was purely a temporary or contractual employment liable to be terminated at any time without any notice and that petitioner having been separated at the age of 60 years, apparently no violation of contract of employment was made by the respondent. Being not a permanent employee of the respondent, petitioner was also not entitled to payment of pension and gratuity so also leave encashment and that respondent seems to have sufficiently compensated the petitioner by extending above noted benefits on his separation. It is not at all the case of petitioner that he was a full time employee of respondent.
13. ' After hearing the counsel for parties through short order dated 7-4-2010 we have dismissed this petition. Above are the reasons for the IF same.