' The petitioner was employed in the respondent-Corporation and was retired before attaining the age of 60 years pursuant to policy decision reflected in Admin. Order 15 of 1997 dated 31-10-1997.
Under the aforesaid order the petitioner was entitled to certain payments from the date of retirement to the date of reaching 60 years of age according to the following provisions:-- "2. The competent Authority has, therefore, decided to introduce and implement a 'Mandatory Scheme' to immediatedly retire, all such employees (except Pilots and Flight Engineers) who shall attain the age of sixty years as on or before 1st July, 2000. Upon retirement such employees shall be entitled to following payments/benefits:
(a) Salary allowances and perquisites as admissible to a regular employee of his substantive pay group and rank in lump sum with effect from the date of retirement to date of reaching sixty years as per personal record with the Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Intervening period'). The said lump sum payment shall include payment for accumulated privilege leave/leave prepatory to retirement as per the Corporation's Rules/Regulations. The said lump sum payment shall be subject to the recovery/adjustment of any amounts due to the Corporation from such employee against any account/head.
(b) For the intervening period such employees shall remain entitled to:"
2. The admitted position appears to be that while the petitioner was paid his salary and termination benefits etc., in accordance with the aforesaid order he was not paid any foreign posting allowance that he was receiving immediately before his retirement on account of being posted at New Delhi. The petitioner contends that he was entitled to such payment which is denied by the respondents who have asserted for foreign posting allowance can only be paid to employees who are actually serving the Corporation and performing duties outside Pakistan. It is further contended on behalf of the respondent that the matter relates to the terms and conditions of employment and our jurisdiction stands ousted in view of Article 212 of the Constitution. We have heard the learned counsel at length and are unable to subscribe to Mr. Gohar lqbal contention.
There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner was entitled to receive foreign posting allowance only on account of the factum of his posting abroad and he could be recalled for any reason, he would cease to be entitled to such payment. In the circumstances we are unable to see how such allowance became a condition of service and had to be paid even upon his retirement under the abovementioned policy. As regards the jurisdictional aspect, admittedly the petitioner submitted a departmental appeal within the hierarchy of the Corporation which was not decided within a reasonable time he was at liberty to move the competent Service Tribunal for redress in case, such appeal was not decided within a ninety days, but instead of moving the Tribunal he kept on waiting needlessly for almost two years. In the circumstances we think that no case for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction is made out. We would accordingly dismiss this petition. The petitioner may approach competent authorities for redress if so advised.