' ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.--- Through this petition, petitioner has made prayers as under:--
(i) To direct the respondent PIAC management to implement the PIAC employees pension trust related circular # 21/03 dated 31-3-2003 issued on the basis of Minute 14 duly approved by the Chairman PIAC on 17-3-2003, to implement this in its letter and spirit with in a period of 15 days.
(ii) To order and direct PIAC management that petitioner's monthly net pension should be increased in the light of the circular # 21/2003 as per chart made vide para 27 of this petition and Rs,599973/-. Arrears of increased pension w,e,f, 04-06-03 should be deposited with the Nazir of Sindh High Court Karachi immediately and on final order should be paid to the petitioner.
(iii) To order and direct PIAC management issue net pension Rs,37071/- from 01-08-2013 onward monthly basis to my bank account already available with pension section of PIAC regularly without any delay.
(iv) To order and direct PIAC management that in future whenever and whatever percentage of the salaries of serving Aircraft Engineers are increased, the same increase with the same date should also be given to the petitioner without fail.
(v) To order and direct PIAC management to pay profit of the above arrears of the pension at the profit rate of State Bank of Pakistan.
(vi) To order and direct PIAC management to pay cost of this petition.
(vii) Grant any relief/ relives to which the petitioner is found entitled or which is deemed just and appropriate by this Honourable Court in the light of facts and circumstance of this case.
2. The relevant facts of the case of the Petitioner, briefly stated, are that in the year 1968 he was appointed as Radio Mechanic (Group III with Personal No,22330) in the respondent Corporation; that later he was being promoted in higher groups such as, in the year 1974 in pay group V, in the year 1995 as Aircraft Engineer and ultimately, he retired on 03-06-2003 as a Senior Aircraft Engineer on attaining the age of superannuation. As a past record, his services were terminated on 10-9- 1976 on account of Trade Union activities and next year he was reinstated with back benefits; however, in the year 1981 his services were again dispensed with but he was re-employed on the recommendation of Review Board constituted by the President of Pakistan vide Notification No,LR- 17(6)88 dated 20-5-1989. According to him in the years 2003 and 2004 his pension was wrongly fixed, so he preferred appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal praying for proper settlement/calculation of pension etc. And his appeal was accepted vide judgment dated 26.06.2006 holding him, among others, entitled to the benefits of Administrative Order No,32/78. He sought by way of Constitutional Petition No,981 of 2008 implementation of the judgment of the Tribunal which was allowed and the appeal of the respondent preferred against that before Honourable Supreme Court was dismissed on 08-04-2010. Now the petitioner wants calculation of pension in the light of circular No, 21 of 2003 and subsequent circulars issued thereafter upto 2011 which, according to the petitioner comes to be Rs,5,99,973/00 by the end of 31-7-2013.
3. The respondent Corporation filed its written reply with the contention that the Service Rules/Regulations of the respondents are non-statutory merged in and formed part of contract of employment, hence the relationship is governed by the principle of master and servant; that the terms and conditions of employment/settled by way of contract, if any, of service, could not be enforced under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 and petition in that behalf would not be maintainable; that the calculations claimed by so called increase in the pension as pleaded in paragraph 27 of the petition is denied specifically being incorrect, baseless, fabricated and illegal; that circular No,21 of 2003 dated 31-7-2003, relating to benefits to certain class of employee/ pensioners was neither service rule nor service regulation but it was issued by Management and could not be enforced by way of writ jurisdiction; that the petitioner retired on 31-6-2003, accepted his service benefits/pensionary benefits on his retirement. However, he filed several proceedings including Service Appeal No,340-K (C)/2004, C.P. No,981 of 2008 and contested the Civil Appeal No,235-K of 2008 filed by the Respondent against the order in C.P. No,981 of 2008; that in compliance with the order of this Honourable Court and the Honourable Supreme Court, the respondent has already made payment to the petitioner and filed compliance report before the Honorable Supreme, Court of Pakistan; that the petitioner is presently getting monthly pension of Rs,17,114/- in pursuance of the orders passed earlier in the above referred proceedings and in view of the increase in pension as per entitlement vide Circular No,1/2010 dated 11.01.2010 and Circular No,14/2013 dated 19.04.2013; that the questions raised by petitioner before this court stood already decided by learned Federal Service Tribunal and Honorable Supreme Court and that even the review petition filed on the subject by various cases of employees stands disposed of by Honorable Supreme Court; that the petitioner had also filed C.P. No, D-1073 of 2009 which was allowed by this Court and CPLA filed against that is still pending.
4. We have heard the petitioner in person and learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation. The main contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled to the increase of pension under Circular No,21/2003 and other several circulars issued from time to time thereafter as referred to in this petition, which may be allowed to him as calculated in the instant petition. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand denied the contention of the petitioner and submitted in his arguments that he is not entitled to any increase in his pension except what has been allowed to him up to date. Learned counsel took a plea that the Service Rules and Regulations of the respondent are non-statutory whereas, the services of the petitioner were contractual hence he cannot invoked constitutional jurisdiction by way of this petition which is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. He further submitted that this petition also suffers from laches and be dismissed. He placed reliance on case of Shahabuddin Haider v. Chairman, Pakistan International, Airlines Corporation and 2 others (PLD 1992 SC 531), Pakistan International, Airlines Corporation and others v. Tanweer-ur-Rehman and others (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 676) and an un-reported judgment in PIAC v. Syed Suleman Alam Rizvi and others (Civil Appeal 213-K of 2010).
5. We have given due consideration to the above submissions and we have gone through the case law referred to by learned counsel for the respondent corporation. Placing reliance on the cited cases, he has taken a serious objection as to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that the Service Rules and Regulations of Respondent Corporation are non-statutory, which touches very root of the instant matter. In case of PIAC v. Tanweer-ur-Rehman (supra), it has been held by the apex Court in paragraph 25 that, ".. We are persuaded to hold that although the appellant Corporation is performing functions in connection with the affairs of the federation but since the services of the respondent --employees are governed by the contract executed between both the parties, as is evident from the facts narrated hereinabove, and not by statutory rules framed under section 30 of the Act, 1956 with prior approval of the Federal Government, therefore they will be governed by the principle of Master and Servant". In Civil Appeal No, 213-K of 2010, supra, the honourable Supreme Court in the case of some retired employees held in (Paragraph 8) that, "there is a plethora of judgments to the effect that no petition lies in the matter pertaining to the terms and conditions of service of employees of corporation, where such terms and conditions are not governed by statutory rules. It is an admitted position that the terms and conditions of the employees of the appellant corporation are not governed by any statutory Rules, and is now well settled that the relationship between the appellant corporation and its employees is that of a master and servant" and it has been held that, "the private respondents may however, if so advised, file suit for redressal of their grievance before the appropriate forum, which may, keeping in view that the matter has already been delayed inordinately and also that the private respondents are of advance ages, be disposed of, as expeditiously, as possible". Since the question of maintainability of petition in the case of PIAC employees has set at naught in view of the dictum laid down by the honourable Supreme Court, therefore, no further discussion could be made to take different view, therefore, we hold that this petition is not maintainable and dismissed. However, the petitioner may approach the court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief, which shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.