IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, C.J. - Through the instant Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioners have made the following prayer:- "It is respectfully prayed that writ may kindly be issued and impugned order notified vide letter dated 2.2.2012 may kindly be set aside and in consequence thereof, the respondents may kindly be directed not to change/review the salary structure/pay package of the petitioners in the interest of justice."
2. Briefly, the petitioners in the instant writ petition have mentioned that they are regular employees, on Basic Pay Scales (BPS) of the International Islamic University, Islamabad (IIU). The said University is a creation of statute called as International Islamic University, Islamabad Statute 1985. The petitioners were appointed on different positions, on different occasions and at the time of their appointment, the terms and conditions of their service were settled, whereby, in addition to their regular pay, an incentive pay (also called as other special allowance) was also granted, however, vide notification dated 4.6.2010, the respondents notified to stop the incentive pay for the new employees, whereas, the incentive pay of the petitioners was frozen at July, 2010 level. The petitioners have further mentioned in the writ petition that vide impugned letter dated 2.2.2012 the petitioners have come to know that the Board of Governors in its meeting held on 10.12.2011 has decided to discontinue the frozen incentive w.e.f. 1.9.2012 to remove the disparity that emerged as a result of pre and post July, 2010 appointments. The petitioners filed departmental appears dated 27.2.2012 and 5.6.2012 against the said decision of the Board of Governors but the same have not been responded, hence, the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the initial terms and conditions of service of the petitioners could not be varied, who were associated for establishing the reputation of the University and the benefit once extended to the petitioners could not be withdrawn after a period of fifteen years under the principle of locus poenitentiae; that the benefit extended to the petitioners has been withdrawn without issuing any show-cause notice or affording them an opportunity of personal hearing, as such, the impugned letters dated 2.2.2012 are in sheer violation of the principle of natural justice; that the reasons given in the impugned letters as well as in the para wise comments furnished by the respondents are quite different from each other which shows mala i.e on the part of the respondents; that the said act of the respondent University is a result of exploitation because the petitioners are performing their duties under the settled terms and conditions without any complaint, therefore, reduction in salaries is against the principle of natural justice and fair play; that there is no change in the nature of job of the petitioners, whereas, the respondents are going to reduce the salaries of the petitioners from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-; that most of the petitioners had sacrificed attractive jobs in different departments due to offer of attractive salaries by the respondents, at the time of their appointments in the respondent University, and at this stage, if the salaries of the petitioners are decreased, they would suffer irreparable loss; that no such clause was mentioned in the appointment letters of the petitioners, whereby, the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioners could be varied by the respondent University; that the respondent University has adopted a wrong procedure for removing the disparity among the set of employees and the language of the impugned letter is threatening; that in the para wise comments, the respondents have nowhere mentioned that the impugned action has been taken in order to remove the disparity among the employees of the University, rather, the plea of financial crisis of the University has been taken. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the respondent University is a statutory body and is amenable to writ jurisdiction and the rules of the University are statutory in nature and principle of master and servant does not apply in the case of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon 2007 PLC (C.S.) 1046.
4. Conversely learned counsel for the respondents, while arguing about the maintainability of the writ petition has been the stance that International Islamic University, Islamabad is an autonomous body having its non! Statutory rules, therefore, the relationship between the University and its employees is that of master and servant, hence, the writ petition is not maintainable; that the Board of Governors of the respondent University is independently making rules, whereas, the Board of Trustees makes the Statutes; that there is no statutory violation of the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioners; that the "incentive" is not a vested right of the petitioners and it is well-settled principle of law that where no right is involved, writ jurisdiction of High Court cannot be invoked; that the Board of Governors of the University in its 32nd meeting held on 16th May, 1996 had decided sharing of net profit of self-finance scheme, and 40% of net profit could be distributed to faculty members as "incentive", however, it doesn't mean that it had become part and parcel of the terms and conditions of service of the petitioners; that the petitioners had filed departmental appeals against the impugned orders and those appeals were duly considered by the respondent University and the petitioners were afforded full opportunity of hearing and it was categorically informed to the petitioners that due to financial crisis the incentive already granted to them could not be continued. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon PLD 2011 Supreme Court 132 and 2012 PLC (C.S.) 1205 (Sindh High Court).
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused the documents brought on record.
6. I am not oblivious that at the very inception question of jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and maintainability of the writ petition is to be decided by this Court.
7. Admittedly, International Islamic University, Islamabad was created under International Islamic University Ordinance, 1985. Under Section 5 of the said Ordinance, it is mentioned that the University shall be a fully autonomous body with freedom to govern its academic functions in order to achieve its objectives. Whereas, under Chapter V of the Ordinance ibid "Authorities' of the University are mentioned, which include "the Board of Trustees" and "the Board of Governors'. Under Section 17 of the IIU Ordinance, 1985, it is mentioned that Board of Trustee shall be the supreme authority of the University in all matters and its decision shall be final and binding. In the said section of the ITU Ordinance, 1985, it is further mentioned that Board of Trustees shall have the power to formulate or approve the principle policies and the plans governing the activities of the University. Section 19 of the International Islamic University Ordinance, 1985 deals with the Board of Governors of the University and under Section 21 of the said Ordinance, it is mentioned that the Board of Governors shall have the power to appoint teachers, researchers and officers on the recommendations of the Selection Board. As such, it is nowhere mentioned in IIU Ordinance, 1985 that the University shall frame its rules or regulations with the prior approval of the Federal Government, therefore. I feel no hesitation to hold that the service rules of the petitioners are non-statutory in nature, hence, the petitioners could not invoke the extra-ordinary Constitutional jurisdiction (of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and principle of Master and servant would apply in respect of employees of International Islamic University. In this regard I am also fortified by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as 2010 SCMR 1495, PLD 2010 Supreme Court 676 and PLD 2011 Supreme Court 132.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, as the service rules of the employees of International Islamic/respondent are non-statutory in nature, therefore, the petitioners could not invoke the extra-ordinary Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, as such, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed being not maintainable.