' Brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner was retired after attaining the age of superannuation after serving the respondents for 39 years. The respondents issued option of retirement benefits policy. The petitioner, thereafter submitted an application before the concerned Manager which was accepted. Subsequently the respondents had withdrawn the same on 18-7-2001 without providing hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his pension papers before respondents but the respondents did not take any action on the same. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No,4772 of 2002 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 22-3-2002 and the respondents were directed to dispose of the pension case of the petitioner in accordance with law and intimate him about the fate of the case within one month. The respondents intimated him vide letter dated 19-4-2002. The petitioner submitted certain documents during the pendency of writ petition through C.M.No,1 of 2003 which are attached as Annexure F and G. Annexure-F reveals that it is the policy dated 14-10-2002 qua option of retirement pension; whereas Annexure G is letter dated 25-11-2002 under the heading of option for retirement benefits.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that action of the respondents is without lawful authority. The respondents are duty bound to release the following benefits to the petitioner:--
(i) Due Pension.
(ii) Mark-up on the House Building Loan.
(iii) Provident Fund.
' The aforesaid benefits were not released to the petitioner by the respondents as is depicted in letter dated 19-4-2002. He further submits that the petitioner had opted the aforesaid retirement policy of the respondents through an application which was accepted by the respondents, therefore, the principle of locus poenitentiae is attracted in all respects and the respondents have no lawful authority to withdraw the same on the well-known principle of locus poenitentiae and without notice to the petitioner, therefore, the action of the respondents is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further urges that in spite of section 2-A newly added in Service Tribunal Act, this Court has jurisdiction to resolve the controversy between the parties.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents raised preliminary objection that the Government has sold 51% shares to the private persons, therefore, the management control of the Bank had already been handed over to the -private buyers in view of Notification issued by the respondent on 18-10- 2002. He further submits that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of Article 199(5) of the Constitution as none of the respondents is a person in the terms of aforesaid provision of Constitution. In support of his contention, he relied upon un-reported judgment dated 12-6-1997 passed in Constitutional Petition No,838 of 1996 Division Bench of Karachi High Court, in case of "Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. v. Muhammad Ayub Tanwari, etc." 2001 PLC 607 and unreported judgment dated 9-1-2002 passed in C.Ps. Nos.2767-L, 3030-L-2000, 157-L and 235 of 2001 of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. He further submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of fact in Constitutional jurisdiction.
4. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that vested right had already accrued to the petitioner on the basis of retirement policy of the respondents, therefore, subsequent amendment or transfer 'control and management of the bank to the private person, cannot take away vested right accrued to the petitioner on the basis of retirement policy of the respondents.
The vested right accrued to the petitioner cannot be taken away through the notification with retrospective effect. He further urges that Article 199(5) of the Constitution is riot attracted in the present case, as the respondents did not take this objection at the time of filing of report and parawise comments in response to the direction of this Court. He further urges that the objection raised by the learned counsel of the respondents is not sustainable in the eye of law as objection is not in accordance with law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention, he relied upon un-reported judgment dated 7-10-2002 passed in C.P.L.A. No,2861-L of 2002. He further urges that the notification qua the transfer of the management of the respondent-Bank to the private person, was not placed on the record by the respondents with the permission of this Court, therefore, the respondents cannot take benefit of the said notification. He summed up his arguments that the action of the respondents is in violation of their retirement policy as the petitioner filed an application under the said policy which was accepted, thereafter the respondents have no lawful authority to withdraw the same without notice to the petitioner.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
6. In case, the contents of writ petition, rejoinder, C.M. No,1 of 2003 alongwith annexure and report and parawise-comments alongwith annexures, be put in a juxtaposition, then it brings the case of the petitioner in the area of the disputed question of fact and this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of fact ui Constitutional jurisdiction, as per principle, laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Younis Khan's case 1993 SCM R 618. It is also admitted fact dim the petitioner filed Writ Petition No,4772 of 2002 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 22-3-2002. The respondent No,4 was directed to dispose of the pension case of the petitioner in accordance with law and intimate him about the fate of this case within one month.
The respondent intimated the petitioner vide letter dated 30-5-2002 qua the fate of the aforesaid case. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition. The respondents were directed to file report and parawise comments. The respondents filed report and parawise comments and raised preliminary objection that after addition of section 2-A in the Service Tribunal Act, the writ petition is not maintainable. The respondents did not raise objection qua the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 199(5) of the Constitution, in view of Notification dated 18-10-2002. In this view of the matter, I leave this question to decide in some other appropriate case. It is pertinent to mention here that the said notification was not brought on the record with the permission of the Court.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, the petitioner has alternative remedy to avail proper remedy for resolution of the disputed question of fact before the competent Court/forum.
' With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.