2017 PLP 611 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD GHAZANFAR KHAN, J.

Through instant writ petition, the petitioners seek direction to respondents to extend their services till completion of Project as per terms and conditions of the contract agreement.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents invited applications through publication in newspaper for different posts in the Project throughout Province and Iqbal Hussain etc. (the present petitioners) applied to the posts mentioned against their names. After due process, they were appointed and the period was duly extended upto 30.10.2015. In the contract agreement it has specifically mentioned that extension will be given till the life of Project and the Project is still going on but with mala fide intention the respondents have only extended the period of petitioners till 30.10.2015, hence they filed instant writ petition. Comments were called from respondents, which was filed by them.

3. At the very outset learned counsel for respondents raised preliminary objection qua maintainability of instant writ petition by maintaining that the Project is funded by Multinational Donors under the control of World Bank and neither is public organ nor is controlled either by the Central or Provincial Government and hence immune from proceeding under writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for respondents also referred to section 8 of the International Monetary Fund and Bank Act, 1950 (Act No.XLIII of 1950), according to which all governors, executive directors, alternates, officers and employees of the fund shall be immune from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when the fund waives this immunity. He further contended that even if it is held that writ petition is competent, even then the question will arise that whether contractual obligation can be questioned in writ petition, wherein factual controversy is involved. The learned counsel for petitioners when confronted with above situation they could not rebut the arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioners.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for petitioners referred to initial report No.72939-PK, wherein in Column No.7 it is mentioned that "KP Government to complete staff hiring and training KP Government to ensure the key positions of Project Director, EDO-CDD and Facilitators are filled with qualified staff and are retained for the life of Project". However, this contention of learned counsel for petitioners cannot be read in isolation. It has to be seen in the light of agreement referred above.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Perusal of the record reveals that certain documents annexed with comments shows that Internal Evaluation Committee was constituted as services of the petitioners were not satisfactory. So according to the terms of contract, their contract period was not extended. As is envisaged in Section 8 of the International Monetary Fund and Bank Act, 1950 (Act No.XLIII, 1950) that:-- "Section

8. Immunities and privileges of officers and employees. - All governors, executive directors, alternates, officers and employees of the Fund- (i) Shall be immune from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when the Fund waives this immunity; (ii) Not being local nationals, shall be granted the same immunities from immigration restrictions, alien registration requirements and national service obligations and the same facilities as regards exchange restrictions as are accorded by members to the representatives, officials, and employees of comparable rank of other member; (iii) Shall be granted the same treatment in respect of travelling facilities as is accorded by members to representatives, officials and employees of comparable rank of other members. The apex Court in case titled "Pakistan Red Crescent Society and another v. Syed Nazir Gillani" reported in PLD 2005 SC 806 = 2005 PLC (C.S.) 1264 has held that:-- "We have also adverted to the question as to whether the respondent could have invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction for the redressal of his grievances or otherwise? It is settled law that an employee of a corporation in the absence of violation of law or any statutory rule could not press into service the Constitutional jurisdiction or civil jurisdiction for seeking relief of reinstatement in service. His remedy against wrongful dismissal or termination is to claim damages."

7. Admittedly, the status of petitioners and respondents are that of Master and Servant and the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is factual one, which cannot be adjudged without recording pro and contra evidence. Adding to elegance the writ petition as has been discussed above in the judgment of apex Court and law referred ibid is not maintainable.

8. In the wake of above, this writ petition is bereft of any merit, which is dismissed. ZC/277/P Petition dismissed.