' MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, J.---Facts, in brief, for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioners were the employees of defunct Corporate Law Authority (CLA), which was dissolved and in lieu thereof Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) was established through an Act of 1997, and the present petitioners opted to join the SECP.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the employees of CLA, after their option to join the Commission were entitled to such remuneration, allowances and other terms and conditions of service as are applicable to the employees of the Commission and the ducted employees of CLA could not have been placed at a disadvantageous position vis-a-vis direct employees of the Commission.
3. It is further stated by the petitioners that the SECP (Employees) Pension, Fund Rules, was framed in 2000 and amended in 2002, according to which, two separate formulas were incorporated for calculation of pension benefits for the direct employees and secondly for the indirect employees of CLA.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioners that through these formulas, a Factor System was introduced whereby last basic pay drawn by ExCLA Employees was reduced by almost 30% before calculation of pension benefits placing them at a great disadvantage vis-a-vis direct employees of the Commission.
5. The petitioner, therefore, submitted departmental representations against this system of calculating the pension on different dates from 1st January, 2010 to 1st June, 2010, but vide order dated 21-6-2010 their claims were rejected and they approached this Court.
6. The petition was vehemently contested by the -respondents through parawise comments, whereby maintainability of the petition was challenged on the ground that rules of the Commission are non-statutory, the factual as well as financial controversies regarding calculation are involved and petitioners are stopped 'from their behaviour as they accepted their pension dues without any objection.
7. The petition was also contested on the point of laches as the petitioners were retired from service during the period from 13-2-2002 to 15-1-2007, while the present petition was filed on 30-10-2010. It is further submitted that the right of appeal was not available to the petitioners; however, their representations were decided on merits after hearing them.
8. On merits, it is submitted that the petitioners joined the Commission after giving their option and, therefore, they were subject to regulations made by the Commission and all the terms and conditions of employment were binding upon them, therefore, the rules of pension made by the Commission are also binding upon them.
9. It is further contended that the petitioners received their pension dues without any objection and after years and years, they woke up from their slumber and submitted the departmental representation, which was hopelessly time barred and the present petition is also highly delayed with no explanation.
10. It is lastly contended that after willingly accepting the final settlement, the petitioners have no right to trap the respondents into litigation.
11. Heard and record perused.
12. Admittedly, the rules of the Commission are non-statutory. It is also admitted, fact that the petitioner No,10 retired on 13-2-2002, while the last two petitioners retired including petitioner No,6 (Mr. Zahir Shah) on 15-8-2007.
13. According to record, the departmental representations were submitted in January, 2010 while the present petition was filed on 30-10-2010 without any justifiable reason for approaching the court with such a delay and, therefore, the petition badly suffers from 'aches. It is also observed that the calculation of pension dispute involves financial controversies, which cannot be appreciated under writ jurisdiction.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the petition being forceless and hit by laches is dismissed with no order as to costs.