Muhammad Tariq Azhar

  Certainly. I have converted the substantive Office Memorandum shown in your photographs into clean English text below. I have omitted the separate circulation/addressee page because it is administrative distribution information and does not alter the operative pension order. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF FINANCE No. 4(1)/REG.6/2026 Islamabad, the 29th July, 2026 OFFICE MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: GRANT OF INCREASE IN PENSION TO PENSIONERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The undersigned is directed to convey the approval of Federal Government to grant an increase @ 7% on baseline pension with effect from 1st July, 2026 to all Civil Pensioners of the Federal Government including Civilians paid from Defence Estimates as well as retired Armed Forces Personnel and Civil Armed Forces Personnel. The baseline pension shall be as decided/determined vide Finance Division’s O.M. No. 9(3)R-6/2024-403 dated 01.01.2025 read with Finance Division’s O.M. No. 4(1)/REG.6/2025 dated 07.07.2025 and F...

 Article-300(B) by AI Grok on the “Comparison of Hameed Akhtar Niazi (1996 SCMR 1185) with Other Service Law Precedents in Pakistan Comparison of Hameed Akhtar Niazi (1996 SCMR 1185) with Other Service Law Precedents in Pakistan The Hameed Akhtar Niazi judgment (Civil Appeal No. 345 of 1987, decided 1996) is a foundational precedent in Pakistani service law. It established that when a court (Supreme Court or Service Tribunal) decides a point of law relating to terms and conditions of service, the benefit should extend to similarly placed non-litigants as a matter of justice, good governance, and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. It is not strictly limited to in personam (parties only) but operates more broadly for the class.3 Key Principle (Para 16, Often Quoted) “If a Tribunal or this Court decides a point of law relating to terms and conditions of a civil servant who litigated, and there were other civil servants, who may not have taken any legal proceedings, in such a case, t...

  Article-300(A) by AI Grok on Hameed Akhtar Niazi Precedent (1996 SCMR 1185) Hameed Akhtar Niazi Precedent (1996 SCMR 1185) This is a landmark Supreme Court of Pakistan judgment (Civil Appeal No. 345 of 1987, decided in 1996) that established a key principle in service law regarding the extension of benefits from court decisions to similarly placed non-litigants. Core Principle (Often Quoted Paragraph 16) “If a Tribunal or this Court decides a point of law relating to terms and conditions of a civil servant who litigated, and there were other civil servants, who may not have taken any legal proceedings, in such a case, the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of the said decision be extended to other civil servants also, who may not be parties to that litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or any other legal forums.” This principle treats such judgments as operating in rem (affecting the general class) rather than s...

 English Article Article on PTCL Pensioners and the Continuing Struggle for Justice . Why the Restrictive Interpretation of PTET Regarding Government Pension Is Legally Unsustainable For more than a decade, thousands of retired employees of the former Telegraph & Telephone (T&T) Department, later Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC), and ultimately PTCL, have been struggling to obtain their lawful pensionary rights. These pensioners are not asking for charity, favour, or discretionary relief. They are demanding implementation of rights already protected by law and repeatedly recognized by the superior courts of Pakistan. Unfortunately, instead of implementing the spirit and letter of the Supreme Court judgments, PTET and PTCL have continued to create unnecessary obstacles, artificial classifications, and legal confusion. One of the most controversial aspects of the present dispute is the changing and contradictory position adopted by PTET. After the Supreme Court or...

 Detail  analysis on the Status of T&T Employees as Civil Servants vs Workman Interpretation of Paragraph 18 & 19 of the Supreme Court Judgment (July 10, 2025). Let us first see what said by Honourable CJ Justice Yahya  Afridi about Civil Servant-Workman Distinction in Paragraph 18 &19 the Supreme Court Judgment (July 10, 2025) which is as under “Dismissal of the Civil Servant-Workman Distinction Para 18. Based on the correct understanding of the decision in Masood Bhatti review judgment and the legislative intent underpinning the statutory protections afforded to transferred employees, the dismissal of the distinction between civil servants and workmen among transferred employees in the adopted view risks oversimplifying a legal reality that is both structurally and historically significant. The statutory framework did not adopt a blanket approach to all categories of employees; rather, it preserved rights according to their pre-existing legal character. In t...