' MUHAMMAD AZIM KHAN AFRIDI, J.--- Syed Khalid Ali Bukhari son of Syed Ibn-e-Ali Bukhari and Luqman Hakim Khattak son of Haji Muhammad Amir Khan, hereinafter referred to as the petitioners have preferred the instant constitutional petition under Articles 199, 2-A-4 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973., hereinafter referred to as Constitution with a prayer to declare orders dated 10-2-11, rejecting offer of the petitioners for Voluntarily Severance Scheme (VSS) 2010 by the respondents Nos.2 to 5 as illegal, arbitrary and as such, be set aside.
2. Salient features of the constitutional petition are that the petitioners joined service in the House Building Finance Corporation hereinafter referred to as HBFC in the year 1980 and, since then, earned more than 30 years service to their credit. That the petitioners and respondents Nos.6 to 9 gave option under the said VSS 2010, and as a consequence thereof, respondents Nos.6 to 9 were relieved under the scheme, while the petitioners were informed vide letter No,HBFCL/ HOK/VSS- 2010/176, dated 10-2-11 and letter No, HBFCL/HOK/VSS2010/177, dated 10-2-11 that their option for availing VSS-2010 has been declined/rejected by the competent authority.
3. That the said orders of rejection of the option for availing VSS2010 were mala fide and that the HBFC was not competent to withdraw the offer as by acceptance of the same rights to avail its benefits accrued to the petitioners which could not be taken away by the authority. That the petitioners were dealt with unfairly and contrary to the law and provisions of Articles 225, 4 and 2-A of the Constitution. That having no other adequate and efficacious remedy, the petitioners were left with no option but to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court through the instant constitutional petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have put in more than 30 years service. That the VSS 2010, was offered by the HBFC, which was availed by the petitioners as well as respondents Nos.6 to 9, but surprisingly the respondents Nos.6 to 9 were awarded the benefits of the scheme, while the petitioners were arbitrarily deprived of the same. That the competent authority for the said scheme was Managing Director/CEO for all cadres and grades, while the impugned orders referred to above were issued by an authority other than Managing Director/CEO namely, Chief Manager Pay and Pension. That the orders of respondents Nos.2 to 5 are amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 to 5 has argued that HBFC is a Public Limited Company and therefore no writ under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable against the same. That the petitioners were not given the benefit of scheme as they were not relieved by the HBFC. That the petitioners cannot compel the HBFC to relieve them of the service under the VSS 2010 as the HBFC was having the right to accept or decline any such option at its absolute discretion and without assigning any reasons.
6. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7.VSS-2011, for HBFC employees in Executive and Officers cadre was offered by the Company vide circular bearing Reference No,(003- 76)/P/HR&A/2010/916, dated June 18th 2010. The said circular is reproduced hereinafter for ready reference and facilitation with relevant portions of the same with highlighted display.
"Ref. No, (003-76)/P/HR&a/2010/916, dated June 18th 2010 SUB: Voluntary Severance Scheme (VSS)-2010 for HBFCL Employee in Executive and Officers Cadre.
' Dear Executives and Officers, ' House Building Finance Corporation Limited (HBFCL) is the most dominant institution in the housing finance sector, and in ' line with market practices, structural reforms are much needed to strengthen the institution's foundation and revitalize its operation.
' The Board of Directors has envisaged a strategy to optimize use of human resources, and achieve a balanced "skill" profile in tune with business strategies, and market practices. In view of this, the BOD have approved a Voluntary Severance Scheme (VSS) for its employees with a very attractive package of terminal benefits and compensation so as to enable the organization to revamp its systems and to realize its objectives, and become a learner institution and embark on the path of success in the present highly competitive financial sector environment.
' The terms and conditions of the VSS offer as contained in the enclosed VSS circular, we believe are fair and competitive. It recognizes the important contributions made by the employees over the years towards the growth of the Company, and the Company's long standing commitment to protect the best interest of its employees. Therefore, in arriving at the VSS package, adequate weight has been given to the length of service in the Company.
We wish to state that application for this VSS offer is strictly voluntarily on the part of the employee.
' In case you are interested to opt for your VSS, please complete the enclosed "Option form" and send the same to the undersigned through proper channel, i,e, through your Zonal Chief and Provincial Chief (in case of posting at Head office) and through your Departmental and Divisional Head (in case of posting at Head Office) by or before 30 June, 2010.
Please note that the Company reserves the right to accept or decline any option at its absolute discretion, without assigning any reason (s).
' VSS scheme for staff (Clerical and Non Clerical) will be announced separately in near future.
Thank you Yours sincerely, ' Minhaj Ahmad Qureshi Executive Director, HR & A Division."
8. The competent authority has been defined in clause 6 of Annexure-A of circulation dated June 18th 2010 referred to above in the following words:--- "6. Competent Authority 6(i) The authority to accept voluntary severance under the scheme shall be the Managing Director /CEO for all cadres and grades.
' Sub-clauses (8.4) and (8.5) of clause 8 (Miscellaneous) has further clarified the issue. Relevant portion whereof is also reproduced herein for ready reference and facilitation:--- 8.4 Not withstanding of any of the aforesaid provisions this scheme does not confer any right on an employee to have his/her request for Voluntary Severance accepted by the management.
8.5 The Competent authority has the right/discretion either to accept or reject the request of any employee of Voluntarily Severance.
9. The afore-mentioned circulation and extracts from Annexure-A would clearly suggest that VSS- 2010 was an approved Scheme of Severance from employment with specified terminal benefits and computable on the basis of status and service of employees. Highlighted contents of the said circular would suggest that the approval and introduction of the Scheme by the management of HBFC, by itself was not an absolute, unqualified or unreserved offer to employees and that mere application under the scheme by employees would oblige the HBFC to mandatorily grant and award the same. In fact it was for an employee to submit, in his discretion, an offer for consideration and evaluation of the same by the HBFC and the discretion was vested and assigned to the management of HBFC and it was, therefore, the consent and nod of the Managing Director/CEO to transform and convert the proposal into a binding contract or an enforceable agreement.
10. In the case in hand, petitioners have signified their willingness under the VSS-2010 but the said willingness, being a proposal at the most, has not been accepted by the competent authority of HBFC and as such no agreement enforceable under the law has come into existence. Mere announcement of the scheme by HBFC has not conferred any right on the petitioners save a right to apply and offer themselves for consideration under the scheme and as such the petitioners, being proposers, are not entitled to enforce their claim for the VSS-2010 as of right and as such the impugned orders dated 10-2-11 declining the offer of the petitioners under the scheme neither suffer from any illegality nor the same can be treated or termed as an arbitrary or discriminatory act on the part of concerned respondents.
11. So far as, maintainability of the constitutional petition is concerned, the HBFC is a Public Limited Company registered with Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan. Article 199(1)(a)(i) of the Constitution authorizes an aggrieved party to seek order against a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, or a Provincial or a local authority, to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do, or to do anything he is required by law to do.
Functions of HBFC, having no nexus with the affairs of the Federation or a Provincial or a local authority and it cannot be, therefore, termed "a person" within the meaning of and for the purpose of Article 199(1)(a)(i) of the Constitution. Additionally, the respondents were not required by law to accept the offer of the petitioners compulsorily as such the constitutional petition in hand, on the said counts is not maintainable.
12. For the above-stated reasons constitutional petition in hand, being devoid of merits is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.