The petitioners through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 have called in question the orders whereby their orders regarding contractual appointment have been cancelled.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners through the instant petition has asked for an order in the nature of mandamus under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for quashing the impugned orders on the plea that the same are unreasonable, violative of rules, policy and law applicable thereto.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. Without touching merits of the case, it is suffice to say that it is also well-settled principle of law that a contract employee cannot file a writ petition to seek redress in respect of grievance relating to terms and conditions of service. The reason is that a writ of mandamus may be granted only in a case where there is statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge that statutory obligation. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep the subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. In the present case, the appointment of the petitioners is contractual in nature and there is no statutory obligation as between the respondents and the petitioners. In my view, any duty or obligation falling upon a public servant out of a contract entered into by him as such public servant cannot be enforced B by the machinery of a writ under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. This view finds support from the case of "M/s. Momin Motor Company vs. Regional Transportation Authority Dacca and others" (PLD 1962 SC 108), Major (R) Khalilur Rehman v.
Overseas Pakistan Foundation and others (1984 CLC 2168) and M. A Rashid v. Province of Punjab and 2 others (1987 M LD 153). It is also settled principle of law that if an employee is dismissed in breach of a contractual requirement, he may recover damages and cannot claim re-instatement, whatever hardship he suffers as a result of his dismissal. In this regard reliance may be placed on Addis v. Gramophone Co. Ltd. (1909) AC 488), Vide Collier v. Sunday Referee Publishing Co. Ltd., [1940 (4) All. E.R. 234] Rogan-Gardiner v. Woolworths Ltd. (2010) WASC 290), Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs v. Muhammad Azam Chattha (2013)
SCMR 120).
5. In view of above this petition is dismissed in lim ine.