No doubt about that that transferred PTC employees to PTCL on 1-1-1996, have the status of Civil Servant in PTCL

For the information to all such PTCL transferred employees who have still any doubt that they can not  invoke the jurisdiction of High Court in spite having been governed by Statutory Rules of the Federal Govt in PTCL as per verdict of HSC in Masood Bhattie case reported in 2012 SCMR 152 , which attaind final after the dismissal of CRP of PTCL against it on 19-2-16 my 5 member honourable judges bench headed by HCJ

Regards

Tariq

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tariq Azhar <azhar.tariq@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 28 June 2016
Subject: Reply
To: syed maqbool hussain zaidi <smhzptcl@gmail.com>
Cc: "Zaidi, Ansar Hussain Syed" <ansar-z@hotmail.com>, Masood Bhatti <bhatti.masood@gmail.com>, Qamaruddin Qazi <qamaruddinqazi@gmail.com>


Dear Zaidi Sahib I don't want for further debate on it. I am very much cleared that when 5 member Judeges bench confirmed the decesion of 3 member bench Judges, in Masood Bhattie case, that the transferred employees from PTC to PTCL on 1-1-1996 can invoke the jurisdiction of High Courts. So the other verdicts against it , by any high court and of less bench members of Supreme Court, are irrelevant. To me the decision of HSC in Masood Bhattie case, now attained Final which , is acutely explanation of the relevant sections of the act envisaged in PTC Act 1991 and PT ( re-Organization ) Act  1996.

Regards

Tariq

On Monday, 27 June 2016, syed maqbool hussain zaidi <smhzptcl@gmail.com> wrote:

Sir,

Copy of 1996 NLR 143 as you mentioned in your e-mail was sent to you as well.

Kindly read it carefully. If there is procedural violation civil servants can available remedy before the Tribunal. For easy understanding, suppose someone issued charge sheet/show cause notice under E&D Rules, 1973 but he procedure is not followed. This case is for FST.

But in our case there is violation of terms and conditions of service. In such cases civil servant only invokes Article 199 of the Constitution.

We have very very bitter experience of High Courts and Supreme Court. The orders of SC dated 16.06.2016 based on perjury. No doubt when Review Petitions were dismissed by a larger bench there was no need to conceal the facts and misguide the judiciary as done by Shahid Anwar Bajwa. Afsoos no judge will take against him and he /they will continue to misguide the courts in each and every case and try to extract their desired results.

Maqbool Zaidi

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Tariq Azhar <azhar.tariq@gmail.com> wrote:

A-o-A

           The PTCL had taken the plea CRP in Faiz-ur-Rehman  case[ Copy Attached]  that why he did not approach to FST being , having the status of Civil Servant as per verdicts Masood Bhattie case. Why he directly approached to IHC. But that  plea of PTCL was not acceded and their CRP rejected, as he rightly invoke the jurisdiction of high court,  in view of decision of  HSC in Masood Bhattie case . This case was decided by three member honourable judges , ie Ex HCJ Ch Iftikhar, Ex HCJ Jawwad S Khwaja & Amir Hani Muslims .

Regards

--
Sent from Rawalpindi Pakistan via iPad

--
Sent from Rawalpindi Pakistan via iPad

--
Sent from Rawalpindi Pakistan via iPad