Muhammad Naeem Anwar , J. Through the instant writ petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan; 1973, petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- a. To renew the contract of .the petitioner as per agreed terms up to 22.1 1.2019. b. The petitioner be paid by the respondents the arrears of services rendered amounting to Rs.900,000.00 for 06 months (six months) from 23.1 1.2018 to 22.05.2019 with outstanding bills.
2. Epigrammatic features, as per contents of petition, are that petitioner was engaged on retainer-ship basis, on the agreed terms & conditions for a period of "one year" commencing from 19.11.2016, for monthly Retain ship fee of Rs.80,000/-. It was stipulated that renewal of retain ship shall be at the exclusive option of respondent/bank Contract of petitioner was extended by respondent-bank for another one year from November 24, 2017 to November 23, 2018 on the term already agreed earlier. Petitioner requested for extension through application dated November 20, 2018 but no such extension was accorded in black and white, however, as contended by petitioner, he was verbally permitted to carry on the services. It was averred that as the retainer- ship is not being extended explicitly, hence this petition.
3. Worthy counsel for petitioner heard and record perused;
4. Admittedly , services of petitioner were hired regarding which parties, mutually agreed the terms and conditions of the contract i.e. "Engagement on Retainer-ship", whereby termination of engageme nt was explicitly provided under clause 4.1 that:- "This engagement shall expire at the end of the term. Upon expiry of the term, the Retainer-ship may be renewed at the sole discretion of the Bank. The Bank shall reserve the right to discontinue/terminate the engagement with you at any time without assigning any reason and any notice without pecuniary obligation on part of the Bank on account of such action".
5. The prayer of petitioner shall be considered on the basis of agreed term and condition, whereby the renewal of contract was placed at the sole discretion of Bank. Such issue has been settled by apex Court in case of Government of Baluchistan Vs. Dr . Zahida Kakar (2005 SCMR 642 ), wherein, it was observed that:- "It is an admitted fact that the service of respondent was purely temporary basis and terminates on the expiry of contract period or any extended period on the choice of employer or the appointm ent authority . Prima facie it does not create any vested right."
6. In another case titled "Federation of Pakistan and another Vs. Hashim Khan Qureshi (1987 SCMR 156), it was held that:- "Mere continuance of employment of temporary employee for two years or more in service did not ipso facto convert appointment into permanent one".
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Dr. Muhammad Ahmad Vs. PTCL through Chairman Islamabad and other 2007 PLC (CS) observed that:- "The orders dated 15.9.1996, 28.4.1997 and 04.2.2000 show that petitioner was appointed on contract/part time basis. There is no cavil to the proposition that an employee appointed/engaged on contract/part time basis has got no vested right to claim for being absorbed/engaged on regular/ permanent basis".
8. The petitioner's engagement was commenced through acceptance of Retainer-ship contract on 19.11.2016, which expired on 20.11.2017, however , an extension for one year, for the period 24.11.2017 to 23.11.2018 was approved. The petitioner requested for further extension but the same was not accorded. As such, the petitioner being contract employee cannot force for the extension of contract period and under constitutional jurisdiction even this Court cannot force any statutory body to extend the contract.
9. The other prayer of petitioner is for the payment of arrears of services for the period 23.11.2018 to 22.5.2019, suffice it to say, that the contract was expired on 23.11.2018, if any services were provided by the petitioner to the respondent bank, without there being any written employment, that too a verbal direction of the bank shall be I considered as contractual obligation, if any, shall be determined by the Courts of ordinary jurisdiction and not by this Court. This Court in case titled Malik Muhammad Jalil Vs Federal Secretary for Defense (2019 CLC 127) has held that:- "Contractual rights, commitments, undertaking and obligation have to be enforced through Courts of ordinary jurisdiction, which 'could not be interfered by the high Court while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction".
Similarly in a case titled Ashraf Ali Akhanda Vs Abdul Awal and others (PLD 1968 Quetta 962), it was held that:- "Breach of contract or failure to honour obligation arising out of agreement cannot be decided by the High Court in writ jurisdiction".
10. Viewing the above, this petition is not maintainable as no question of violation of fundamental rights is involved.
Consequently , this petition stands dismissed with no order as to cost.