' SYED SAEEDUDDIN NASIR, J.--- Only grievance of the petitioner is that during his service and upon introduction of "OPTIONAL RETIREMENT SCHEME", announced by the respondent No,3 on 13-9-1994, the petitioner applied for Optional Retirement as per the said scheme vide; application dated: 3- 10-1995 addressed to the Executive Vice President, Allied Bank of Pakistan, however, according to the petitioner the decision thereon was never communicated to him.
1. The petitioner wrote letters to the Chairman Khidmat Committee, District South, Karachi for the redressal of his grievance, who vide; letter dated: 21-5-1998, addressed to the President of respondent No,3 called upon him to give benefits to the petitioner in accordance with "OPTIONAL RETIREMENT SCHEME". The respondent No,3 vide; letter dated 25-5-1998 addressed to the Chairman Khidmat Committee, District South, Karachi informed that the name of the petitioner was considered for the said scheme, however, after giving due consideration, the same was declined by the bank vide; letter No,CO/staff(AA)94/8513 dated 20-12-1994, and enclosed copy thereof along with the aforesaid letter.
2. The petitioner, who is present in person before the Court today has argued that the petitioner fulfilled all the requirements, tents and conditions of the aforesaid scheme, but he was deprived of seeking benefit in respect of encashment of entire accumulated leave with full salary, allowances, perquisites etc., last draw, three months' salary i,e, basic, allowances, fringe benefits etc. For each remaining year till superannuation age with further prayer that this encashment may be allowed for maximum period of 18 months of optional retirement package under Circular No,P/INF-94/195 dated 13th September, 1994 issued by respondent No 3 under the aforesaid "OPTIONAL RETIREMENT SCHEME". However, the petitioner finally opted for retirement voluntarily from Bank's service as per Bank's Staff Rules upon his own request letter dated 9-1-1996; the petitioner's matter for optional retirement under the aforesaid scheme was kept in abeyance for a period of one and a half years till the petitioner reached the age of superannuation/regular retirement from service by the department with mala fide intention to deprive the petitioner from the benefits of the said scheme and to facilitate their favorites, and as such the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits under the said scheme of optional retirement under the law.
3. While controverting the arguments of the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No,3 Messrs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. Has stated that the "OPTIONAL RETIREMENT SCHEME" dated 13-9- 1994 specifically contemplated in the second last para of such scheme that all the requests under the said scheme will be considered on individual basis and the bank shall have the discretion to accept or reject any application for Optional Retirement without assigning any reason. The learned counsel for respondent No,3 then drew attention of the Court to the letter dated 9-1.1996 addressed by the petitioner to the Executive Vice-President, Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd., wherein the petitioner had requested that since the petitioner had completed 25 years of continuous service in the bank, therefore, the petitioner may be retired from Bank's service as per Bank's Staff Rules: it is evident from the contents of the aforesaid application of the petitioner that the petitioner was all along aware of the fact that his request for optional retirement under the "OPTIONAL RETIREMENT SCHEME" had been turned down by the respondent No,3, inasmuch as, the petitioner did not emphasize upon his earlier request for optional retirement, and requested for retirement in accordance with the Bank's Rules despite the fact that the "OPTIONAL RETIREMENT SCHEME" was open upto the introduction of fresh retirement scheme in terms of Circular No,P/INF-97/65 dated 7-8-1997.
4. Accordingly the request of the petitioner for premature retirement was acceded to and decision of the same was communicated to the petitioner vide, Human Recourses Division letter dated 1-10- 1996, which was duly accepted by him on 3-10-1996 and he was finally relieved from the duty w,e,f, 15-10-1996, after completion of all necessary formalities, all the retirement benefits were released to the petitioner, who received the same by putting his signature thereon.
5. Learned Standing council adopts the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No,3.
6. We have heard the arguments of the petitioner, who appeared in person, and the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No,3, upon which we are clear in our mind that the "OPTIONAL RETIREMENT SCHEME" offered by the respondent No,3 to its staff members who had completed TWENTY (20) years of continuous service, however, the same was not available to all the staff members inasmuch as in the second last para of such scheme the respondent No,3 categorically mentioned that:-- "All the requests will be considered on individual basis and the bank shall have the discretion to accept or reject any application for Optional Retirement without assigning any reason."
7. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent No,1 vide; letter dated: 14-2-2004, while giving brief reply to the complaint of the petitioner dated 15-12-2003 against the Administration of respondent No,3, observed that the petitioner applied for "OPTIONAL RETIREMENT SCHEME", in terms of Circular dated 13-9-1994, however, out of 86 applications for the said retirement scheme only 50 applications were accepted whereas 36 applications, including the B application of the petitioner, were declined by the Executive Committee of the respondent No,3 in its discretion as per the aforesaid policy vide; letter dated: 20-12-1994.
8. Upon plain reading of the aforesaid clause of the "OPTIONAL RETIREMENT SCHEME" dated: 13-9- 1994 there is no cavil to the fact that all the applications under the said scheme were to be considered by the respondent No,3 on individual basis and the respondent No,3 had absolute discretion to either accept or reject any application for optional retirement, without assigning any reason. This provision was probably C kept by the respondent No,3 in order to prevent complete brain drain of skilled and experienced staff members from the bank who were required for its smooth functioning. The respondent No,3 was not bound to accept all the applications that were made to it by its staff members under the said scheme.
9. Moreover, in the letter dated 9-1-1996 addressed by the petitioner to the Executive Vice- President, Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd., the petitioner voluntarily requested that since the petitioner had completed 25 years of continuous service in the bank, therefore, the petitioner may be retired from Bank's service as per Bank's Staff Rules, which request of the petitioner was accepted to vide; Human Recourses Division letter dated 1-10-1996, which was duly accepted by him on 3-10-1996 and was finally relieved from the duty w,e,f, 15-10-1996; after completion of all necessary formalities all the retirement benefits were released to the petitioner, who received the same by putting his signature thereon.
10 We agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for respondent No,3 that the petitioner was all along aware of the fact that his request for optional retirement under the "OPTIONAL RETIREMENT SCHEME" had been turned down by the respondent No,3, inasmuch as, the petitioner did not emphasize upon his earlier request for optional retirement, and requested for retirement in accordance with the Bank's Rules.
11. In our opinion the petitioner after having acquiesced to be retired from Bank's service as per Bank's Staff Rules, cannot turn around and again press his demand for retirement under the "OPTIONAL RETIREMENT SCHEME", being acutely conscious of the F fact that such request of the petitioner was turned down by the respondent No,3 in 1996. In para-4 of the petition the petitioner himself admits that the respondent No,3 informed Khidmat Committee on 23-9-1998 that the petitioner's application was considered and had been turned down vide; letter dated: 20-12-1994. It also forwarded to the Khidmat Committee copy of the said letter, wherein it was specifically mentioned that due to exigencies of service, the petitioner's request for allowing retirement from Bank's service has been considered and declined. Even otherwise the respondent No,3 was not obliged to accept each and every application made to it by the staff members under the G terms and conditions of "OPTIONAL RETIREMENT SCHEME" as narrated hereinabove.
12. Even if we take it to be true that the communication of declining of the petitioner's application was made on 25-5-1998 to the then Khidmat Committee District South, which onward communicated the same to the petitioner, the petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court with regard to such an inordinate delay in filing the instant petition which was filed on 13-11-2010 i,e, after a delay of about 12 years, Therefore, we are also of the view that the instant petition suffers from' serious laches.
13. The petitioner appears to be in self-deception as far as the cause of action for filing the instant petition is concerned that the respondent No,3 was obliged to entertain each and every application that was made to it under the "OPTIONAL RETIREMENT SCHEME" or probably is trying to create a make believe situation for the Court and feigned that a cause of action for filing the instant petition did accrue to the petitioner and that the petitioner was entitled to opt for retirement under the aforesaid scheme in all probability, whereas the actual position is quite opposite to it. In our opinion no cause of action ever accrued to the petitioner for filing the present petition, which is a sham and farce exercise done by the petitioner in order to extort some material gains I from the respondent No,3, to which he was admittedly not entitled. We are, therefore, of the considered view that no cause of action ever accrued to the petitioner for filing the instant petition, which is liable to be dismissed.
14. Therefore, for the reasons stated herein-above, we see no merit in this petition, which is dismissed at Katcha Peshi stage, however, with no order as to costs, for which the petitioner should consider himself fortunate for not being imposed upon him.