Mirza Viqas Rauf, J.--This appeal in terms of Section 3 of The Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 (hereinafter referred as "The Ordinance, 1972") is directed against the order dated 4th March, 2019, whereby the learned Single Judge in Chamber proceeded to dismiss W .P.No. 3502 of 2019 filed by the appellant.
2. The appellant being the employee of Multan Electric Power Company (hereinafter referred as "MEPCO") canvassed his grievance through constitutional petition (W.P.No. 3502 of 2019) that he has been deferred from time scale promotion under vis-a-vis up-gradation from BS-15 to BS-17 without any rhyme and reason. The appellant, to this effect, impugned the letter dated 16th October , 2017 issued by the HR & Admin. Director , MEPCO, Multan. The constitutional petition was dismissed through order under appeal.
3. After having heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length, we when confronted him with the Court query as to how the constitutional petition was maintainable as the appellant is employee of a company having non-statutory rules of service, despite all earnest ef forts, learned counsel has of fered no plausible answer .
4. We have noticed that the appellant is an employee of "MEPCO", which is a limited company and admittedly having no statutory rules governing the terms and conditions of service of its employee. We are cognizant of the fact that an employee, whose services are regulated by non-statutory rules, is precluded to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court as is held in "Executive Council Allama Iqbal Open University . Islamabad through Chairman and another v. M. Tufail Hashmi" (2010 SCMR 1484 ). In the recent judgment by a learned Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of "Muharnmad Zaman and others v.
Government of Pakistan through Secretary , Finance Division (Regulation Wing), Islamabad and others"
(2017 SCMR 571), a criteria has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in order to determine the status of the rules being statutory or otherwise, which to our mind resolves the whole issue. The relevant extract from the same is reproduced below: "6. Like many other statutory bodies, SBP has also been given the power to frame regulations. In this regard Section 354 of the Act is relevant which reads as follow: "54. Powers of the Central Board to make regulations.
(1) The Central Board may make regulations consistent with this Act to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or convenient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act: Provided that the terms and conditions of service of Governor and Deputy Governor shall be determined by the Federal Government.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely: U) recruitment of officers and servants of the Bank including the terms and conditions of their service, constitution of superannuation, beneficial and other funds, with or without bank's contribution, for the officer and servants of the Bank; their welfare; providing amenities, medical facilities, grant of loans and advances, their betterment and uplift;
(3) .................................................................."
According to Section 54(1) of the Act, the Board is empowered to make regulations consistent with the Act to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or convenient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. It is pertinent to mention that previously SBP could only make regulations with the approval of the Federal Government, however by virtue of Act II of 1994, the words subject to the approval of the Federal Government" were omitted. We are of the view that this omission is significant, conferring greater autonomy on the Board as the Federal Government was removed from the regulation-making process, and fulls authority came to vest in the Board to make such regulatio ns. Indeed this was the view of two-me mber bench of this Court in the judgment reported as Chief Manager . State Bank of Pakistan , Lahore and another v. Muhammad Shafi (2010 SCMR 1994 ) wherein, while considering whether the State Bank of Pakistan Staff Regulations, 1999 were statutory or non.-statutory , it was held as follows: "7. The words "subject to the approval of the Federal Government" were omitted vide Act II of 1994. The regulations were framed under Section 56 in the year, 1999 as is evident from the source on the basis of which the said regulations were framed which is to the following effect: "In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 54 of the State Bank of Pakistan Act, . 1956 (XXXIII of 1956) the Central Board of. Directors, hereby makes the following regulations, to define the conditions of service of the employees of the Bank.
8. The omission of the aforesaid words subject to the approval from Section 54 is meaningful Rules framed by the Central Board of Directors which does not require approval of the Government, therefore aforesaid regulations may be termed as internal instructions or domestic rules iregulatiom having no status of statutory rules/regulations as law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements ..."
We are of the opinion that the above view applies to and is correct vis.-a-viz the Regulations in the instant matter as well. Furthermore, as matters stand (since the omission by Act 11 of 19941, and as mentioned above, the regulation-making power lies solely in the hands of the Board with no intervention or approval of the Federal Government, and this reflects the intention of the Legislature. In this context, as highlighted above, even the structure of the Mord as provided for in the Act renders it autonomous, with the Members, save for the Secretary , Finance Division, Government of Pakistan, being private individuals, independent from the Federal Government. In fact, where the legislature wanted the intervention of the Federal Government, it has specifically provided for, the same, and in this regard the proviso to. Section 54(1) of the. Act is relevant which states, that "the terms and conditions of service of Governor and Deputy Governor shall be determined by the Federal Government", clearly suggesting that the Legislature's intention was to exclusively clothe SBP with the power to frame regulations to carry out the objects and purpose of the Act. Furthermore, Section 46B(2) of the Act [inserted by the. State Bank of Pakistan (Amendment) Act, 1997 (Act No. XII! of 1997)], provides that "the Bank, the members of the Board or the staff of the Bank, shall not take instructions from any other person or entity , including the government or quasi- government entities. The autonomy of the Bank shall be respected at all times and no person or entity shall seek to influence the members of the Board and Monetary Policy Coni mittee or the staff of the Bank in the performances of their functions or interfere in the activities of the Bank "It may be added that to give maximum autonomy to SBP, Section 52(1) of the Act which empowered the Federal Government to supersede the Board and entrust the general superintendence and direction of the affairs of SBP to such agency as it (Federal Government) may determine was omitted by the State Bank of Pakistan (Amendment) Act, 2012 (Act No. IX of 2012 dated 13.3.2012). All the above aspects point towards the growing autonomy of SBP .
7. According to the judgment delivered in Civil Appeal. No. 654/2010 etc. titled Shafiaue Ahmed Khan. etc. v.
NESCOM through its Chairman. Islamabad, etc. the test of whether rules/regulations are statutory or otherwise is not solely whether their framing requires the approval of the Federal. Government or' not, rather it is the nature and efficacy of such rules/regulations. It has to be seen whether the rules/regulations in question deal with instructions for internal control, or management, or they are broader than and are complementary to the parent statute in matters of crucial importance. The former are non-statutory whereas the latter are statutory . In the case before us, the Regulations were made pursuant to Section 54(1) of the Act and Section 54 (2) thereof goes on to provide the particular matters for which the Board can frame regulations [while saving the generality of the power under Section 54(1) of the Act]. Out of all the matters listed in Section 54(2) of the Act, clause (j) is the most relevant which .pertains to the "recruitment of officers and servants of the Bank including the terms and conditions of their service, constitution of superannuation, beneficial and other funds, with or without bank's contribution, for the officers and servants of the Bank; their welfare; providing amenities, medical facilities, grant of loans and advances, their betterment and uplift". A perusal of the Regulations suggests that they relate to pension and gratuity matters of the employees of SBP and therefore it can be said that the ambit of such Regulations is not broader but narrower than the parent statute, i.e. the Act. Thus the conclusion of the above discussion is that the Regulations are basically instructions for the internal control or management of SBP and are therefore non-statutory . Hence the appellants could not invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the learned High Court which was correct in dismissing their writ petition."
5. In the recent past in the case of "Federation of Pakistan through Secretary , Ministry of Energy (Power Division), Islamabad and others" (2020 SCMR 2119), the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the case of FESCO, observed that it is a limited company and does not have any statutory rules governing the terms and conditions of service of its employees.
6. After having an overview of the above laid principles we are of the candid opinion that constitutional petition was not maintainable and it was rightly so adjudged by the learned Single Judge in Chamber . Even otherwise, we have found no illegality in the order under appeal. Resultantly this Intra Court Appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.