SHAHID KARIM, J. This constitutional petition challenges the order dated 27.9.2016. In order to bring forth the historical facts, the following paragraphs of the impugned order are being reproduced as under: "6. As per record, HBL filed an appeal before the President of Pakistan against the decision of Wafaqi Mohtasib Order No. HQR/6044/13 and HQR/6046/13 dated July 7, 2014. The President of Pakistan was pleased to pass the order bearing No.211 and 262/WM/2014 dated May 30, 2016. As per the order of the President of Pakistan, the rights of persons were admitted who rendered services in the bank and opted for pension in pursuance of the Government Letter dated 30.11.1977.
In pursuance of the same, they are eligible to receive increased pension until the said letter is superseded/withdrawn and an alternate remedy is provided. Further, it was also held that the change of status of bank employees who are legitimately excepting to receive periodic rise in pension. Accordingly, the President of Pakistan while accepting the representations of HBL on technical grounds for want of jurisdiction of the Wafaqi Mohtasib in the matter, was pleased to convert the complaints of the complainants into the petitions to the President of Pakistan and directed the Finance Division as well as HBL to consider the cases of the complaints and other old pensioners of the bank who opted for retirement when they were eligible for increase in pension on the analogy of other Civil Servants.
8. It also came under discussion that UBL approached the Finance Division while taking their legal position on the issue. Finance Division vide their letter F. No. 1(11) Bkg-11/2010-570 dated 11.8.2016 informed that the President's direction cannot be regarded as mere findings or recommendations and advised UBL to review their stance and take action in the light of President's directions. During proceedings, UBL was asked about the status of implementation of said letter. The bank informed that matter will be discussed in their board meeting to be held in the month of October, 2016. On a query whether any valid restraining/stay order has been obtained by the bank in the matter or not? Representatives of the bank confirmed that no stay has been obtained so far."
2. It is admitted on all hands as given in the impugned order that the 'representation filed by Habib Bank Ltd. (HBL) was dismissed by the President and some directions were issued to the Finance Division as well as HBL to consider the cases of the complainant and other old pensioners of the bank who opted for retirement. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner bank was not a party before the President when the representation was decided. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that the Finance Division forwarded the President's letter to State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) to consider the case of increase in pension and widened the scope to ensnare other banks including the petitioner and required the resolution of matter in the light of the order of the President. The respondent No.1 filed a constitutional petition W.P No.15449 of 2009 and the following order was passed on 16.9.2015: "After arguing the case at some length, learned counsel does not wish to press this petition in order to approach respondent No.1 through an appropriate representation which shall be entertained and decided in accordance with law. Disposed of."
3. Pursuant to the order reproduced above the respondent No.1 filed a representation which was determined by, the impugned order.
4. In the paragraph 8 above of the impugned order, it has also been stated that discussions ensued between the petitioner and the Finance Division and it was tried to impress upon the petitioner to review its stance and to initiate action in the light of the President's directions as in the opinion of the Finance Division the President's directions cannot be regarded as mere findings or recommendations and advised UBL to review their stance and take action in the light of the President's directions". Further, paragraph 9 proceeds to advise the petitioner to give rise in pension and pay arrears to the petitioner in the light of order of the President of Pakistan and directions of Finance Division. Interestingly, in paragraph 10, the officer decided the representation concluding as follows:- "10. The bank is further advised to comply with the orders of the President of Pakistan in letter and spirit within a period of fifteen days positively without fail. In case of non-compliance by the bank, pencil action under section 83(5) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 may be initiated by the SBP against the responsible officer(s) along with recovery of arrears of pension from the bank."
5. The conclusion arrived at above does not make a reference to any provision of law which had been invoked by the Director Banking Company and Consumer Production Department, SBP while requiring the petitioner bank to comply with the order of the President of Pakistan. Also to state that in case of non-compliance the renal action under section 83(5) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 shall be put in motion by the SBP. If at all the regulatory authority under the Ordinance, 1962, is SBP and not the President or Pakistan who does not have any role in the entire scheme of things. It is indeed incredulous that the petitioner is being pressured to grant a large scale rise in pension and to pay arrears to a considerable number of ex-employees which would necessarily mean a huge financial burden on the petitioner. Without resting the case on any specific provision of law which obliged the petitioner to do so, the officer of SBP has passed an order merely on the assumption that the supreme executive authority of the country had directed to do so. This was a complete abdication of the powers by the officer who was oblivious of the statutory regime under which SBP acted as the regulator and must act under the mandate of law to issue such directions. Any orders by the President of Pakistan in such matters is without lawful authority and cannot be accepted or implemented without demur by the petitioner on the orders of officer of SBP.
6. It is interesting to note that the source from which the issue emanated was a representation before the President which was in fact dismissed. That representation was filed by HBL and the petitioner was not a party in those proceedings. That case could not be made the basis for passing general orders on the part of the President of Pakistan to the Finance Division who without dilating upon the merits of the directions proceeded to act as a post office to issue directions to SBP. In turn, SBP too acted irrationally and without regard to its own statutory powers. The impugned order is clearly ultra vires and of no legal effect. It is hereby set aside. This petition is allowed.