Fwd: Draft of Notice
FYI all of you who wish to first issue Notices according to the conditions to become petitioners intend to file by me .The procedures written in my Article-62
Regards
Tari
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tariq Azhar <azhar.tariq@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 at 08:42
Subject: Draft Notice for appeal
To: <azhar.tariq@gmail.com>
From: Tariq Azhar <azhar.tariq@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 at 08:42
Subject: Draft Notice for appeal
To: <azhar.tariq@gmail.com>
Dear PTCL Pensioners
A-o-A
Here is draft of Notice to be served first to all such concern for the payment of pension increase as per GoP as being paid to the Petitioners who filed the CoC case against PTCL President & MD PTET for not implementing the order of HSCP of dated 12-06-2015. In which HSCP had directed that the respondents who were employed in T&T department and the became the employees of PTCL, are entitled of same increase of Pension as announced by GoP for their civil pemsioners.On 15-2-2018, the HSCP two member judges bench, in this CoC case directed the PTET for granting the pension as per GoP without any recovery/deduction of incentive pay given by PTCL, within 15 days wef 15-2-2018. Now PTET is paying to only those Petitioners who filed the CoC case. It is very serious thing that payment of pension increase is only made to only petitioners of the CoC case not to other such PTCL employees who were not the part of CoC case. It clearly violation and contempt of court of the HSCP directive in Hameed Niazi case, reported in 1996 SCMR 1185. In which HSCP had made ruling that "the decision of Supreme Court or FSTC in favor of any govt employee who litigated the case will be applicable to all such employees having the same issue, who may or may not litigate the case... So you all such pensioners are required to serve first this drafted notice through TCS after filling it carefully in all respect. Keep the record of receipts of this notice, as it will be required when you file the contempt case. I may be informed accordingly. Any problem or for any question in this regard, do not hesitate to contact me but after 3 PM daily.
With best wishes
&
Regards
Muhammad Tariq Azhar
Rtd General Manager (Ops) PTCL
Rawalpindi
Cell # 0314-9525902
[DRAFT]
Dated _____________
To
1. Mr. Daniel Ritz,
President /CEO PTCL,
PTCL Head Quarters, G-8/4,
Islamabad.
2. Mr. Hamid Farooq,
Managing Director
Pak Telecom Employees Trust,
Tele-House, Mauve Area, G-10/4,
Kashmir Highway,
Islamabad.
SUBJECT:- NOTICE FOR GRANT OF INCREASE IN PENSION TO OTHER THEN PTETIONERS IN ACCORDANCE TO THE VERDICTS OF HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN IN THE CASE OF PTET &PTCL VS MUHAMMAD ARIF AND OTHERS ,OF DATED 12-06-2015 REPORTED IN 2015 SCMR 1472 ACCORDINGLY AS PER ANNOUNCEMT OF GOVENAMENT OF PAKISTAN FOR THEIR CIVIL PENSIONERS ,IN THE LIGHT OF HSCP JUDGEMENT IN HAMEED AKHTAER NIAZI CASE REPORTED IN 1996 SCMR 1185
Dear Sir
1. I, ________ s/o ____________ joined the then Government of Pakistan Telegraph & Telephone Department on regular post of ___________ (Grade- ) on the date ______.My joining in Government T&T Department was carried out , in accordance T&T Rules Government of Pakistan . After the establishment of Corporation i.e. Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC), in December 1991 as per Section 9(1) of PTC Act-1991, my service had been transferred from T&T department to PTC, along with other all employees of T&T department, on the same Terms & Conditions of Service, as I had in T&T department just before my transfer to Corporation i.e. in PTC.
2. On the date 1st January 1996, I stood transferred again from PTC to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) i.e. a new established Company in accordance to the Sections 35(1) & 36(2) of Pakistan Telecommunication (re-Organization) Act 1996, along with other employees from PTC on the same terms and of services, which I had in PTC and then I became the employee of PTCL wef 1-1-1996. And from PTCL, I have been retired at the superannuation age of sixty years/premature voluntarily retirement/retirement by opting VSS from the post of ___________ (B-) wef __________ vide PTCL H/Qrs Memo Number_________Dated__________.
3. The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in its decision reported in case Masood Bhattie & others vs. Federation of Pakistan & Others (2012 SCMR 152) which has been now attained finally on 19th February 2016, reported in (2016 SCMR 1362 ) .Thus it has been confirmed finally that the employees of the Corporation i.e. PTC who stood transferred from PTC to PTCL and became the employee of PTCL wef 1st January 1996 , would be governed by the statutory rules of Government of Pakistan and their terms and conditions of service ( as envisaged in Section 3 to section 22 of Civil Servants Act 1973 ) can not be altered adversely for their disadvantages and neither PTCL nor Government of Pakistan have any power to alter their such Terms and conditions of Service for their disadvantages. Where the Federal Government of Pakistan is the guarantor for the existing terms and conditions of service and rights including pensioner benefits.
4. Where in the decision HSCP of dated 12-06-2015 in the case PTET, PTCL & President PTCL reported in 2015 SCMR 1472 that PTET is bound to pay the increase in pension as per Government announcement to the respondents who were the employees of T&T. For not implementing the order of HSCP of dated 12-06-2015, contempt of court cases filed by Sadiq Ali & Naseem Ahmed Vohra through Criminal Original Petition 53 of 2015 & 54 of 2015 against you all being alleged. The two member s honorable judges bench of HSCP, vide their order of dated 15-02-2018 directed you for the payment increase in pension as per GoP without recovery/deducting incentive pay within 15 days from 15th Feb 2018 to the Petitioners. Now such all increase in pension as per GoP, payments are being made to only those petitioners who filed the contempt of court cases against in HSCP as quoted above, but no any such payments are being made to all such other who were not Petitioners but having the same issue as of such Petitioners, who had litigated the case.. For not effecting such payments to other then Petitioners i.e. who did not litigate the case is contrary to directive of HSCP, contained in case of Hameed Akhtar Niazi vs. Secretary Establishment Federal Government & others reported in 1996 SCMR 1185.PTCL & PTET are bound to pay to also such PTCL employees other then petitioners of the contempt of court cases i.e. Criminal Original Petition 53 of 2015 & 54 of 2015 ,who were appointed in T&T Department thus according to the verdicts HSCP decision HSCP of dated 12-06-2015, they are also entitled of GoP increase in their pension and PTET is bound to pay it accordingly.
5. Where the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in cases of Hameed Akhtar Niazi (1996 SCMR 1185),Tara Chand (PLJ 2005 SC 826) and Rashid Iqbal (CPLA 525 of 2007 decided on 19th July 2009) , in repeatedly rulings/directions "that if Service Tribunal or Supreme Court decides a point of law relating to the terms and condition of a civil servant who litigated, and there were other civil servants who may not have taken any legal proceedings, the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demands that the benefits of the said decision be extended to other civil servants also who may not be parties to that litigation, instead of compelling them to them to approach the Tribunal or any other legal forum." In recent such type cases in 2009, the Honorable Supreme Court held that also ," that those persons who litigated and those who did not, are to be treated alike, if similarly placed and positioned."
6. Consequently in the light of above noted rulings of Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, I, being the employee of erstwhile T&T Depretement, Government of Pakistan and transferred employee in PTCL on 1st January 1996, having of same category pensioner as that of the petitioners of CoC cases i.e. contempt court cases filed by Sadiq Ali & Naseem Ahmed Vohra through Criminal Original Petition 53 of 2015 & 54 of 2015 in their contempt court cases against you all being alleged , , it is earnestly requested that that I may be granted the same increase in pension without recovery/deductions of incentive pay to me in accordance to the order of HSCP of dated 15-2-2018 in contempt court cases filed by Sadiq Ali & Naseem Ahmed Vohra through Criminal Original Petition 53 of 2015 & 54 of 2015.
If no such complete payment is made to me within 15 days from date of issuance this Notice, as being made to the petitioners of the said CoC cases, then I will be constrained to file also contempt court case against you all, for not implementing the said order of dated 15-02-2018 HSCP in the light of HSCP verdicts in Hameed Akhtar Niazi (1996 SCMR 1185) case.
Yours Sincerely,
Signature_________
[ Name & Rtd, Ex Designation (B-) ]
CNIC #
Previous PTCL Employee #:
Pension PPO /Ref #
Address:
Copy for information & necessary action to:-
1. Honorable Prime Minister of Pakistan
Prime Minister Secretariat Islamabad
2. Federal Secretary (IT& Telecom), the Guarantor
Ministry of Information Technology and Telecom
4th Flour, Evacuee Trust Complex
Agha Khan Road F-5/1 Road
Islamabad
3 The Registrar Supreme Court of Pakistan Islamabad. This is with reference to HSCP order of dated
15-2-2018 in cases Sadiq Ali & Naseem Ahmed Vohra through Criminal Original Petition 53 of 2015 & 54 of 2015.
:
A-o-A
Here is draft of Notice to be served first to all such concern for the payment of pension increase as per GoP as being paid to the Petitioners who filed the CoC case against PTCL President & MD PTET for not implementing the order of HSCP of dated 12-06-2015. In which HSCP had directed that the respondents who were employed in T&T department and the became the employees of PTCL, are entitled of same increase of Pension as announced by GoP for their civil pemsioners.On 15-2-2018, the HSCP two member judges bench, in this CoC case directed the PTET for granting the pension as per GoP without any recovery/deduction of incentive pay given by PTCL, within 15 days wef 15-2-2018. Now PTET is paying to only those Petitioners who filed the CoC case. It is very serious thing that payment of pension increase is only made to only petitioners of the CoC case not to other such PTCL employees who were not the part of CoC case. It clearly violation and contempt of court of the HSCP directive in Hameed Niazi case, reported in 1996 SCMR 1185. In which HSCP had made ruling that "the decision of Supreme Court or FSTC in favor of any govt employee who litigated the case will be applicable to all such employees having the same issue, who may or may not litigate the case... So you all such pensioners are required to serve first this drafted notice through TCS after filling it carefully in all respect. Keep the record of receipts of this notice, as it will be required when you file the contempt case. I may be informed accordingly. Any problem or for any question in this regard, do not hesitate to contact me but after 3 PM daily.
With best wishes
&
Regards
Muhammad Tariq Azhar
Rtd General Manager (Ops) PTCL
Rawalpindi
Cell # 0314-9525902
[DRAFT]
Dated _____________
To
1. Mr. Daniel Ritz,
President /CEO PTCL,
PTCL Head Quarters, G-8/4,
Islamabad.
2. Mr. Hamid Farooq,
Managing Director
Pak Telecom Employees Trust,
Tele-House, Mauve Area, G-10/4,
Kashmir Highway,
Islamabad.
SUBJECT:- NOTICE FOR GRANT OF INCREASE IN PENSION TO OTHER THEN PTETIONERS IN ACCORDANCE TO THE VERDICTS OF HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN IN THE CASE OF PTET &PTCL VS MUHAMMAD ARIF AND OTHERS ,OF DATED 12-06-2015 REPORTED IN 2015 SCMR 1472 ACCORDINGLY AS PER ANNOUNCEMT OF GOVENAMENT OF PAKISTAN FOR THEIR CIVIL PENSIONERS ,IN THE LIGHT OF HSCP JUDGEMENT IN HAMEED AKHTAER NIAZI CASE REPORTED IN 1996 SCMR 1185
Dear Sir
1. I, ________ s/o ____________ joined the then Government of Pakistan Telegraph & Telephone Department on regular post of ___________ (Grade- ) on the date ______.My joining in Government T&T Department was carried out , in accordance T&T Rules Government of Pakistan . After the establishment of Corporation i.e. Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC), in December 1991 as per Section 9(1) of PTC Act-1991, my service had been transferred from T&T department to PTC, along with other all employees of T&T department, on the same Terms & Conditions of Service, as I had in T&T department just before my transfer to Corporation i.e. in PTC.
2. On the date 1st January 1996, I stood transferred again from PTC to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) i.e. a new established Company in accordance to the Sections 35(1) & 36(2) of Pakistan Telecommunication (re-Organization) Act 1996, along with other employees from PTC on the same terms and of services, which I had in PTC and then I became the employee of PTCL wef 1-1-1996. And from PTCL, I have been retired at the superannuation age of sixty years/premature voluntarily retirement/retirement by opting VSS from the post of ___________ (B-) wef __________ vide PTCL H/Qrs Memo Number_________Dated__________.
3. The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in its decision reported in case Masood Bhattie & others vs. Federation of Pakistan & Others (2012 SCMR 152) which has been now attained finally on 19th February 2016, reported in (2016 SCMR 1362 ) .Thus it has been confirmed finally that the employees of the Corporation i.e. PTC who stood transferred from PTC to PTCL and became the employee of PTCL wef 1st January 1996 , would be governed by the statutory rules of Government of Pakistan and their terms and conditions of service ( as envisaged in Section 3 to section 22 of Civil Servants Act 1973 ) can not be altered adversely for their disadvantages and neither PTCL nor Government of Pakistan have any power to alter their such Terms and conditions of Service for their disadvantages. Where the Federal Government of Pakistan is the guarantor for the existing terms and conditions of service and rights including pensioner benefits.
4. Where in the decision HSCP of dated 12-06-2015 in the case PTET, PTCL & President PTCL reported in 2015 SCMR 1472 that PTET is bound to pay the increase in pension as per Government announcement to the respondents who were the employees of T&T. For not implementing the order of HSCP of dated 12-06-2015, contempt of court cases filed by Sadiq Ali & Naseem Ahmed Vohra through Criminal Original Petition 53 of 2015 & 54 of 2015 against you all being alleged. The two member s honorable judges bench of HSCP, vide their order of dated 15-02-2018 directed you for the payment increase in pension as per GoP without recovery/deducting incentive pay within 15 days from 15th Feb 2018 to the Petitioners. Now such all increase in pension as per GoP, payments are being made to only those petitioners who filed the contempt of court cases against in HSCP as quoted above, but no any such payments are being made to all such other who were not Petitioners but having the same issue as of such Petitioners, who had litigated the case.. For not effecting such payments to other then Petitioners i.e. who did not litigate the case is contrary to directive of HSCP, contained in case of Hameed Akhtar Niazi vs. Secretary Establishment Federal Government & others reported in 1996 SCMR 1185.PTCL & PTET are bound to pay to also such PTCL employees other then petitioners of the contempt of court cases i.e. Criminal Original Petition 53 of 2015 & 54 of 2015 ,who were appointed in T&T Department thus according to the verdicts HSCP decision HSCP of dated 12-06-2015, they are also entitled of GoP increase in their pension and PTET is bound to pay it accordingly.
5. Where the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in cases of Hameed Akhtar Niazi (1996 SCMR 1185),Tara Chand (PLJ 2005 SC 826) and Rashid Iqbal (CPLA 525 of 2007 decided on 19th July 2009) , in repeatedly rulings/directions "that if Service Tribunal or Supreme Court decides a point of law relating to the terms and condition of a civil servant who litigated, and there were other civil servants who may not have taken any legal proceedings, the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demands that the benefits of the said decision be extended to other civil servants also who may not be parties to that litigation, instead of compelling them to them to approach the Tribunal or any other legal forum." In recent such type cases in 2009, the Honorable Supreme Court held that also ," that those persons who litigated and those who did not, are to be treated alike, if similarly placed and positioned."
6. Consequently in the light of above noted rulings of Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, I, being the employee of erstwhile T&T Depretement, Government of Pakistan and transferred employee in PTCL on 1st January 1996, having of same category pensioner as that of the petitioners of CoC cases i.e. contempt court cases filed by Sadiq Ali & Naseem Ahmed Vohra through Criminal Original Petition 53 of 2015 & 54 of 2015 in their contempt court cases against you all being alleged , , it is earnestly requested that that I may be granted the same increase in pension without recovery/deductions of incentive pay to me in accordance to the order of HSCP of dated 15-2-2018 in contempt court cases filed by Sadiq Ali & Naseem Ahmed Vohra through Criminal Original Petition 53 of 2015 & 54 of 2015.
If no such complete payment is made to me within 15 days from date of issuance this Notice, as being made to the petitioners of the said CoC cases, then I will be constrained to file also contempt court case against you all, for not implementing the said order of dated 15-02-2018 HSCP in the light of HSCP verdicts in Hameed Akhtar Niazi (1996 SCMR 1185) case.
Yours Sincerely,
Signature_________
[ Name & Rtd, Ex Designation (B-) ]
CNIC #
Previous PTCL Employee #:
Pension PPO /Ref #
Address:
Copy for information & necessary action to:-
1. Honorable Prime Minister of Pakistan
Prime Minister Secretariat Islamabad
2. Federal Secretary (IT& Telecom), the Guarantor
Ministry of Information Technology and Telecom
4th Flour, Evacuee Trust Complex
Agha Khan Road F-5/1 Road
Islamabad
3 The Registrar Supreme Court of Pakistan Islamabad. This is with reference to HSCP order of dated
15-2-2018 in cases Sadiq Ali & Naseem Ahmed Vohra through Criminal Original Petition 53 of 2015 & 54 of 2015.
:
Sent from Rawalpindi Pakistan via iPad
Comments