Fwd: کے خوشی سے مر نا جاتے جو یہ اعتبار ھوتا؟؟؟؟؟
(Attention PTCL employees & Pensioners)
FYI & valuable comments if any
Regards
Tariq
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Muhammad Tariq Azhar <azhar.tariq@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 at 02:36
Subject: Re: کے خوشی سے مر نا جاتے جو یہ اعتبار ھوتا؟؟؟؟؟
To: Baseer Tahir <baseer.tahir@yahoo.com>
From: Muhammad Tariq Azhar <azhar.tariq@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 at 02:36
Subject: Re: کے خوشی سے مر نا جاتے جو یہ اعتبار ھوتا؟؟؟؟؟
To: Baseer Tahir <baseer.tahir@yahoo.com>
Cc: Tauqeer Muhammad <mtauqir786@gmail.com>, bhatti.masood@gmail.com <bhatti.masood@gmail.com>, aslam.siddiqi@gmail.com <aslam.siddiqi@gmail.com>, ghorinasir@gmail.com <ghorinasir@gmail.com>, faizurrehman1212@gmail.com <faizurrehman1212@gmail.com>, smhzptcl@gmail.com <smhzptcl@gmail.com>, ansar-z@hotmail.com <ansar-z@hotmail.com>, rjhokhartipu@gmail.com <rjhokhartipu@gmail.com>, legalaid_jfd@sahil.org <legalaid_jfd@sahil.org>, naeemTNT@gmail.com <naeemTNT@gmail.com>, tariqnaseer.ptcl@gmail.com <tariqnaseer.ptcl@gmail.com>, saleem496@gmail.com <saleem496@gmail.com>, ahson.ptcl@gmail.com <ahson.ptcl@gmail.com>, shakeelsiddiqui0786@gmail.com <shakeelsiddiqui0786@gmail.com>, Muhammad Amjad Ali Syed <sadaat56@gmail.com>, qamaruddinqazi@gmail.com <qamaruddinqazi@gmail.com>, Abdul Sattar Qureshi <qureshi.6546@yahoo.com>, Salahuddin Qureshi <sd.qureshi@yahoo.com>, Engr Ghulam Subhani <ghulamsubhani52@yahoo.com>, emailakhtar@yahoo.com <emailakhtar@yahoo.com>, ferozjunejo@yahoo.com <ferozjunejo@yahoo.com>, Ghulam Hamid Khan <haamid_khan@hotmail.com>, malik_ehsan@yahoo.com <malik_ehsan@yahoo.com>, hbb.muzafar@gmail.com <hbb.muzafar@gmail.com>, kaziakhan@hotmail.com <kaziakhan@hotmail.com>, 19nasir52@gmail.com <19nasir52@gmail.com>, hajisaleem1@gmail.com <hajisaleem1@gmail.com>, msbutt37@gmail.com <msbutt37@gmail.com>, abdulsattar.naeem@hotmail.com <abdulsattar.naeem@hotmail.com>, nubaqai@gmail.com <nubaqai@gmail.com>, Abdul Ghaffar <ghaffar53@gmail.com>, ghafoor.bhutto@gmail.com <ghafoor.bhutto@gmail.com>, muzaffar52@yahoo.com <muzaffar52@yahoo.com>, zafarullah.marwat@yahoo.com <zafarullah.marwat@yahoo.com>, mzmlk@hotmail.com <mzmlk@hotmail.com>, soomro.manzoor@gmail.com <soomro.manzoor@gmail.com>, niazkhaskheli@gmail.com <niazkhaskheli@gmail.com>, nisarahmad77@gmail.com <nisarahmad77@gmail.com>, salamkhanus@yahoo.com <salamkhanus@yahoo.com>, ashrafali1717@yahoo.com <ashrafali1717@yahoo.com>, <zubairatunio@gmail.com>, <izharullah.siddiqui@yahoo.com>, <mhaslam1954@hotmail.com>
Be noted , I am not agreed as did not convince with such remarks of Bashir Tahir and regrets it accordingly.The factual position is not known to Bashir Tahir. Actually it was the proceeding of contempt case ie CASE # Crl.O.P.63/2015 against the President PTCL ,filed by Raja Riaz for not implementing the order of Supreme Court of dated 1-7-2015. This case was on the last stage a & only Supreme Court had to order PTCL for the payment of pension and other emoluments to Raja Riaz as per calculation report as per GoP.The AGPR has submitted their calculation reports ,as ordered by Ex CJ Zaheer Jamali during in the proceeding in Dec-16, to ascertain what amounts actually required to be paid by PTCL according to GoP to Raja Riaz against .But on 2-3-17, the three members bench headed by Honorable CJ Saqib Nasir ,issued order contrary to it and directed to re-list the said contempt case after the disposal main CRP filed by the PTCL against its judgement of dated 12-06-2015 & also directed the petitioner Raja Riaz to vacate PTCL accommodation within one and half month .It is very astonishing order. No one could expect of such order. Why the SC linked this case with the decision of main review petition of PTCL, when already on 15-8-15 ,the SC had directed the PTCL in Its Review Petition # 482/2015 case against the Raja Riaz case in the judgment of SC of dated 1-7-2015 by three members bench ie Mr Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Mr Justice Eajaz Afzal Khan & Mr Justice Iqbal Haider,while dismissing the this said review petition that PTCL can resurrect this review ptetion in case the judgement of Supreme Court in their main review ptetion is changed or altered. Here is the verdicts of the SC in the last para iof the decision of HSC in PTCL ie Review Petition # 482/2015:-
" In view of these developments the learned council for the petitioners be allowed to get the present review petition resurrected if upon the consideration of the view of the above mentioned matters this court takes a view of the legal position different from that taken in the judgement under review .We have found the request so made by the learned council for the petitioners to be reasonable.This review petition is disposed of as not pressed at this stage.The petitioners may get the present review petition resurrected in case the legal position declared by this Court in the judgement under review is changed or altered by this Court in the above mentioned or other cases." .This clearly indicates that the the PTCL was wanted that the decision of SC their review petition in Raja Riaz case against them should be changed or cancelled due to their main review petition against the judgement of dated 12-06-2015 (their appeals ie in C.Ps 565 to 568 /2014 ) already under revie /pending with this court.But it was regretted by court and permission given to them that if the decision of SC in their main review petition is changed or altered then they can file this review ptetion against Raja Riaz case again.But contrary to it they filled their a application C.M.A 7111/2016 during the proceedings of this contempt of court case, but this was dismissed by SC in its judgement of dated 9-1-2017 .This order was written by honorable judge Amir Muslim Hani.
It is not understandable why such order has given now on 2-3-17 , that matter of the said contempt case would be relisted/heard after the disposal of PTCL main review petition under review.
Previously ,the SC clubbed this contempt case of Raja Riaz with the the said main review petition under review.But due to continuously adjournments of the main review petition, proceedings of this said contempt could not be heared. On the request ,at last the ex CJ Mr Zaheer Jamali dis clubbed this contempt case of Raja Riaz and proceedings were started by three member judges headed by the Ex-CJ , who had issued notice to PTCL for making payments other was contempt proceeding would be initiated against the contempters . But PTCL authority did not agree for payment & insisted for the payment as calculated by PTCL where Raja Riaz insisted for the payment as per GoP. At last the Ex CJ , sent the same to AGPR to calculate the claim & certify the claim as per Gop. AGPR submitted the calculations as per GoP accordingly. And as per GoP his due pension calculated more then 55812/- per month where as per PTCL , it was about 33000/-. And now this case when at the last stage.SC was going to order of such payments to PTCL as per GoP ie for issuing notifications for payment due pays and PPO for pension but suddenly this matter was twisted other way. According to Mehmood Aslam ,a retired officer of PTCL and Secretary APPPC , who was present during the said proceeding on 2-3-17 , intimated that during the proceedings the counsel of the of the PTCL ie of PTCL desired that since the main review petition CRP was pending and under review by ,SC, so this matter be decided after disposal of the such review ptetion , but the court refused to do so and directed them that they make the payment and ,if in case the decision of CRP became in their favour then they can recover the said amount from the Raja Riaz. Also on their request the court also directed to Raja Riaz to vacate the PTCL within one month.
This was the whole story during the said proceeding but written decision of dated 4-3-17 is contrary to that .At one hand the court adjourned the case till the decision of main CRP of PTCL and on the other hand directed the Raja Riaz to vacate the accommodation within 1-1/2 months.Where the matter is already prejudice and case of vacation of PTCL accommodation already in Civil Court Islamabad and ."Stay" order order has been granted for not vacation,on it. It means PTCL concealed the facts from the Supreme Court.Where SC ,without hearing the grievances of the petitioner Raja Riaz acted as a trial court, of which SC is not authorised according to rule being a supreme appellant court.Very very astonishing one. So I am compelled to say it again again that
"Dal main kala hee nahin Bul k maha kala hee kala hai"
Regards
Tariq Azhar
Sent from Tariq's iPad from Rawalpindi Pakistan
If someone reads the SC decision in Raja Riaz Review Case authored by Justice Asif Khosa, then one will certainly arrive at the conclusion that in the current SC short order decision :THERE IS NO KALA IN DAAL.Regards,ABT
From: Muhammad Tariq Azhar <azhar.tariq@gmail.com>
To: Tauqeer Muhammad <mtauqir786@gmail.com>; bhatti.masood@gmail.com; aslam.siddiqi@gmail.com; ghorinasir@gmail.com; faizurrehman1212@gmail.com; smhzptcl@gmail.com; ansar-z@hotmail.com; rjhokhartipu@gmail.com; legalaid_jfd@sahil.org; naeemTNT@gmail.com; tariqnaseer.ptcl@gmail.com; saleem496@gmail.com; ahson.ptcl@gmail.com; shakeelsiddiqui0786@gmail.com; Muhammad Amjad Ali Syed <sadaat56@gmail.com>; baseer.tahir@yahoo.com; qamaruddinqazi@gmail.com; Abdul Sattar Qureshi <qureshi.6546@yahoo.com>; Salahuddin Qureshi <sd.qureshi@yahoo.com>; Engr Ghulam Subhani <ghulamsubhani52@yahoo.com>; emailakhtar@yahoo.com; ferozjunejo@yahoo.com; Ghulam Hamid Khan <haamid_khan@hotmail.com>; malik_ehsan@yahoo.com; hbb.muzafar@gmail.com; kaziakhan@hotmail.com; 19nasir52@gmail.com; hajisaleem1@gmail.com; msbutt37@gmail.com; abdulsattar.naeem@hotmail.com; nubaqai@gmail.com; Abdul Ghaffar <ghaffar53@gmail.com>; ghafoor.bhutto@gmail.com; muzaffar52@yahoo.com; zafarullah.marwat@yahoo.com; mzmlk@hotmail.com; soomro.manzoor@gmail.com; niazkhaskheli@gmail.com; nisarahmad77@gmail.com; salamkhanus@yahoo.com; ashrafali1717@yahoo.com
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2017 2:14 PM
Subject: کے خوشی سے مر نا جاتے جو یہ اعتبار ھوتا؟؟؟؟؟
راجہ ریاض کیے کیس میں سپریم کوڑٹ کا ۲ مارچ میں یہ دیا گیا ھوا یہ فیصلہ یہ ظاہر کرتا ھے کے دال میں کچھ کالا ھے. یہ تو توھین عدالت کا کیس تھا جو راجہ ریاض نے سپریم کوڑٹ کے حکم پر عمل نہ کرنے کی وجہ سے دیا تھا کے پی ٹی سی ایل اور پی ٹی ای ٹی نے اسکو وہ رقم ادا نہیں کری جسکا عدالت نے حکم دیا تھا اور عدالت نے باقاعدہ انکوائری کراکر AGPR سے پہلے رپوڑٹ مانگی اور وہ رقم دینے کے لئے اب یہ کیس چل رھا تھا جو delay پہ delay ھورھا تھا .ایک راجہ ریاض کی شائد غلطی سے پی ٹی سی ایل کے وکیل سے منہ ماری کی وجہ سے خراب ھوگیا. اس سے پھلے جو کیس لگا تھا مسلم ھانی کی سربراھی میں ، اس میں تو جہاں راجہ ریاض پر عدالت پہ آنے پر پابندی لگائی تھی اس میں یہ لکھا تھا کے دو ھفتوں کے بعد یہ عدالت اس کیس کی تاریخ دے گی کے یہ کب کیس آيندہ کب لگے گا پھر یہ کیسے اچانک ۲ مارچ کو کیسے ثاقب نثار کی سر براھی میں لگ گیا .یہ بڑا سوال ھے. اور اس کیس کی proceeding کے دوران کچھ اور کہا گیا تھا کے پی ٹی سی ایل یہ رقم ادا کردے اور اگر رویو پٹیشن کا فیصلہ پی ٹی سی ایل کے حق میں آتا ھے ھے تو وہ یہ رقم واپس لے لے. لگتا تو یہ ھی ھے کے سپریم کوڑٹ کے راجہ ریاض کے حق میں دئے ھوۓ فیصلے پر عمل نہ کرایا جائے ورنہ پی ٹی سی ایل کو ایسے تمام پی ٹی سی ایل کے ملازمین او پنشنرس کو تمام رقم دینی پڑے گی .اسلئے پی ٹی سی ایل اور حکومت کی یہ کوشش تھی کے اس پر عمل نہ ھو اور ایسا ھی ھوا.یہ کہنا کے ھماری عدالتیں آزاد ھیں سورج کو چراغ دکھانے کے موافق ھے . اب راجہ ریاض صاحب بھول جائیں کے انکو یہ واجبات ملیں گے بلکے انکو تو پی ٹی سی ایل کا مکان بھی ڈیڑھ ماہ کے اندر خالی کرنا پڑے گا.گئے تھے نماز بخشوانے الٹے روزے گلے پڑ گئے . مجھے امید نہیں کے ھماری رویو پٹیشن کبھی لگے گی . نہ رویوپٹیشن کبھی لگے گی اور نہ بیچارے راجہ ریاض کا دوبارہ کیس لگے گا یعنی نہ نو من تیل ھوگا اور نہ رادھا ناچے گی . اس ۲ مارچ کے اس فیصلے کے بعد بیحد مایوس ھوگیا ھوں مگر خدا کی ذات سے مایوس نہیں ھوا ھوں کیوں کے میں سمجھتا ھوں کے جس کام کو ھم اپنے حق میں برا سمجھتے اس میں خدا کی کوئی نہ کوئی مصلحت ھوتی ھے کے اسی کی وجہ سے خدا ھم کوبہترین صلہ دیتا ھے اسلئے ھم کو اللہ کی ذات سے مایوس نہ ھونا چاھئے بلکے اب بس دعا کرنی چاھئے کے اے اللہ ھماری یہ پریشانی دور کرے اور ھم کو ھمارا حق اچھی طرح دلاۓ آمین!طارق اظہر
<IMG_0141.JPG>
<IMG_0142.JPG>
Sent from Tariq's iPad from Rawalpindi Pakistan
<IMG_0141.JPG>
<IMG_0142.JPG>
--
Sent from Rawalpindi Pakistan via iPad
--
Sent from Rawalpindi Pakistan via iPad
Comments