' Brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the respondents issued Voluntary Separation. Scheme in October, 1996. Petitioners exercised their option. Thereafter; respondents issued another Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 24-2-1999. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners reserved their right to get beneficiary benefit in case the respondents at the time of exercising option under the Voluntary Separation Scheme in case of any improvement in the said Scheme. Petitioners be benefited by the improvement Scheme: Therefore, he further submits that the respondents are estopped by virtue of their conduct not to allow the benefit of the subsequent beneficial Scheme. He further submits that comparative statement reveals the difference between the two Schemes. He further submits that petitioner are entitled to get the benefit of new Scheme on the well-known principle of promissory estoppel. He further submits that respondents have no, authority to issue beneficial Scheme to benefit the persons who were retained by the respondent in the service. He further urged that action of the respondents is arbitrarily, malafidely and is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution as both the Schemes are materially different qua relief granted to the petitioners and after the persons employee on the basis of the new Scheme issued by the respondents in the year 1999. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments: ' PLD 1979 Kar. 410 (United Sugar Mills case), ' PLD 1972 SC 279 (The Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. Case), ' 1985 PTD 465 (Messrs Burhan Engineering Co.) and NLR 98 (CL1) 294 (sic)
2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioners exercised their option under the Scheme offered by the respondents to the petitioners in the year 1996. He further submits that petitioner did not accept the same conditionally. Therefore, petitioners are estopped to file this writ petition on the well-known principle of estoppel and waiver. He further submits that petitioners accepted the payment in lieu thereof in-final statements on the basis of the Scheme offered by the respondents to the 'petitioners in the. Year 1996 as is evident from Annexure R.I. He further submits that so-called Scheme under which the petitioner claimed benefits, through this Constitutional petition has yet not materialised. Therefore, writ petition is pre-mature: He further submits that reasonable classification is permissible under the law as the petitioners exercised their option on the basis of the Scheme offered by the respondents to the petitioners in the year 1996. Whereas the subsequent Scheme was offered to the employees who did not exercise option on the basis of old Scheme and remained in the service of the respondents.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. It is admitted fact that respondents issued Scheme known as Voluntary Separation Scheme. The petitioners accepted the offer under the provisions of the aforesaid Scheme. Therefore, petitioners have no right to wriggle out from this situation after obtaining the payment from the respondents on the basis of the Scheme offered by the respondents as the Scheme is acted upon. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PLD 1979 SC 835 (Shamoon Bahadur's case). Even otherwise writ petition is not maintainable as the respondents have taken a defmite stand that 2nd Scheme has yet not materialized. It is settled principle of law that writ petition is not maintainable on apprehension as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Re-rolling Steel Mills' case 1968 SCM R 317 (2), The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguished on facts and law as the petitioners got the benefit of the earlier Scheme. Therefore, principle of past and closed transaction is C attracted in this case as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miani's case PLD 1973 SC 17, ' In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.