1. ' MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO, J.---Chairman, WAPDA and others have filed this appeal with leave of this Court against a judgment dated 9-1-1994 delivered by the Peshawar High Court in Writ Petition No, 899 of 1992 filed by respondent Maj. (Retd.) Nisar Ahmad.
2. ' Admittedly respondent Nisar Ahmed after his retirement from Army was selected for appointment as Senior Officer (Administration), Warsak in Water and Power Development Authority for a period of two years, vide letter No,2571-75, dated 22-1-1980 issued by the Chief Engineer, Administration (Power), WAPDA, Lahore.
3. ' Some of the terms and conditions of said letter of appointment were, that the appointment was terminable on one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof from either side, without assignment of any reason, that the contract period of two years will be extendable on same terms and conditions for a further period to be mutually agreed upon by the parties, and that the respondent would be governed by such conditions of service as the WAPDA may from time to time prescribe. The contract of service of the respondent was renewed from time to time by WAPDA in accordance with the rules. It is also admitted position that on 2-8-1980 the WAPDA Authorities in exercise of the powers conferred by section 18 of the WAPDA Act, 1958, made rules, namely, Pakistan WAPDA Armed Forces Officers Induction/Re-employment Rules, 1980 (hereinafter mentioned as the rules) regulating the procedure for induction/re-employment in service of the Pakistan WAPDA, the Armed Forces Officers and the terms and conditions of their service. The Rules were amended on 2-6-1987 and again on 18-2-1991. In view of amendment of the Rules on 18-2-1991, the respondent on 3-10-1991 made representation to the WAPDA requesting that the amendment dated 18-2-1991 should not be given retrospective effect and that he be absorbed in service on regular basis. In the alternative he sought further extension in service for three years. In reply the respondent was informed by WAPDA under letter dated 28-1-1992, that his request for extension of service contract or induction in service on regular basis had been considered and the same had not been acceded to and that he therefore stood relieved from WAPDA service on the expiry of his service contract with effect from 4-2-1992. In the meantime, the respondent succeeded in obtaining from concerned Minister an order dated 9-2-1992 directing the Chairman, WAPDA to withhold his order till instructions of the Prime Minister in the matter were received. In spite of this, the WAPDA issued a letter dated 18-4-1992 to the respondent to stop further correspondence as the factual position with reference to the Minister's order dated 9-2-1992 had been intimated on 29-2-1992 to the Ministry of Water and Power. In consequence the respondent filed in the Peshawar High Court in Writ Petition No,899 of 1992 with following prayer:-- "It is therefore most humbly prayed that on the acceptance of this writ petition, an appropriate writ be issued to the respondents directing them to renew the contract of service of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules alongwith any other relief deemed fit and appropriate."
4. ' Said writ petition was contested by the appellants. Under the impugned judgment, writ petition of the respondent was accepted and act of the appellants to refuse to renew the contract of service of the respondent was declared to be without lawful authority and the appellants were directed to renew the contract of service of the respondent in accordance with the original Rules of 1980.
5. Hence this appeal.
6. ' Leave to appeal was granted by a learned Bench of this Court on 23-4-1994 to determine as to which rules would apply to the respondent, when it was laid down in his appointment letter that he would be governed by the rules as prescribed from time to time.
7. ' Mr. Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellants reiterated that in view of para. 6 of the letter of appointment dated 22-1-1980, the respondent was to be governed by such rules as may be framed from time to time. It was next argued that under a letter dated 20-5-1982 to the Director, Security WAPDA, the respondent had exercised his option to remain on contract basis on the then existing terms and conditions of his re-employment and hence he was estopped from changing the position. Reliance was placed on the case of Secretary, Government of Punjab, Food and Cooperation Department v. Shamoon Bahadur, PLD 1979 SC 835. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants argued that a writ petition was not maintainable to enforce terms of a contract more particularly terms of a service contract. In support he cited the cases of Messrs Momin Motor Company v. The Regional Transport Authority, Dacca PLD 1962 SC 108 and the Chandpur Mills Ltd. v.
8. The District Magistrate, Tippera PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 267.
9. ' Unfortunately, neither the respondent was present nor anybody appeared on his behalf although the matter was kept pending and it was taken up at late hours of the day.
10. ' Both the sides in their pleadings have relied upon the appointment letter dated 22-1-1980 by which the respondent joined WAPDA. Para. 6 of said letter reads as below: "He will be governed by such conditions of service as the. Authority may from time to time prescribe."
11. ' Para. 19 of the same letter reads as below:-- "The contract period mentioned in para. 1 will be extendable on the same terms and conditions as stated above for a further period to be mutually agreed between the parties."
12. ' Rule 6(b)(i) of the Rules of 1980 reads as below:- "Officers of the rank of Major and equivalent who retire or may have retired before completion of the prescribed age or service limit and officers of the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel and above and equivalent who may retire or may have retired either after completion of 'prescribed service or age limit or before such completion will be eligible for re-employment on contract for three to five years, renewable up to the age of 60, up to the maximum of 10% of annual vacancies in various cadres on the terms and conditions as laid down in these Rules. In case no orders are received by the date on which contractual period is due to expire, the contract shall be deemed to have been extended until further orders."
13. ' Under the amendment brought on 18-2-1991 Rule 6(b)(i) of the Rules of 1980 would read as below: "Officers of the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel and above and equivalent who may retire or may have retired either after completion of prescribed service or age limit or before such completion will be eligible for re-employment on an initial contract for three years renewable up to the age of 60 years up to the maximum of 10% of annual vacancies in various cadres on the terms and conditions as laid down in these Rules. These officers will be given only one extension in their service contract for a maximum period of three years provided their performance is up to the mark. Such officers will be on probation for a period of one year in the first instance. Their appointment is terminable on one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof, on either side, without assigning any reason and without any financial liability on the part of the Authority."
14. ' Under said amendment dated 18-2-1991, Note II was added below Note I after Rule 6(a)(i) to the effect that the officers of the rank of Major and equivalent, who opted to be re-employed on contract basis, will be appointed initially for a period of three years and will be given only one extension in their service contract for a maximum period of three years subject to their performance being up to the mark. According to Rule 6(c)(iii) the then retired officers of the Armed Forces of the rank of Major and above re-employed in WAPDA for any period, were required to opt either to be governed by their existing terms and conditions or by the terms and conditions contained in the new Rules. The respondent, by virtue of said Rule as amended, exercised his option in writing to remain on contract basis on the existing terms and conditions of re-employment. As held in the case of Shamoon Bahadur (PLD 1979 SC 835) an option having been once exercised, it did not lie in mouth of the person exercising such option, to go back on it in the context of the finality of the consequences ensuing therefrom by its acceptance. In the circumstances, the respondent is not entitled to benefit of unamended Rule 6(b)(i) of the Rules.
15. ' There is force in the contention that a writ petition is not maintainable' for enforcing rights of a contract. In the case of Chandpur Mills Ltd. PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 267, it was held that a writ of mandamus does not issue for the enforcement of contracts. In the case of Messrs Momin Motor Company PLD 1962 SC 108 it was observed that contractual rights were not enforceable by recourse to writ jurisdiction.
16. ' For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment is set aside.