Filling contempt appeal by non PTCL Pensioners Ptetioners
All non PTCL Pensioners Petitioners are requested ,who have not previously filled any appeal for the grant of Govt pension increase according as per Order of Supreme Court of Pakistan of dated 12th June 2015. Don't trust , don't wait that they will be benefited by filling such appeal by other one. All such must file this contempt appeal must combinely & jointly as much as possible by engaging a reputable experienced lawyer in criminal and contempt cases. Don't waste more time in the hope.Draft of such appeal is appended below which can be modified by the concern lawyer concerned ,if it is desired.For any further assistance and help don't hesitate to contact me.
Regards
Muhammad Tariq Azhar
Retired General Manager (OPS) PTCL
Email: azhar.tariq@gmail.com
Cell#: + 92-314-9525902
+92-345-5211167
Draft of Contempt of Court Petition from the non Petitioners PTCL Pensioner
Contempt of Court Petition from non Petitioner Pensioner, for initiating contempt proceedings against the PTET & PTCL, in the light of Supreme Court of Pakistan ruling in case of Hameed Akhtar Niazi Vs Secretary Establishment of Pakistan reported in
1996 S C M R 1185 for not extending the benefits of increase in pension to those such non petitioners who were not the party and did not litigate the case in Muhammad Arif & others Vs Federation of Pakistan in IHC which was in favour of the petitioners, against of which the appeal of PTET had been dismissed by the HSCP on 12th June 2015 as reported in 2015 S C M R 1472 by directing that Pakistan Telecom Employees Trust i.e. PTET is bound to pay the increase in pension as per announcement of Government of Pakistan to the respondents which were Transferred employees in PTCL having statutory rules provision as per verdict of Supreme Court of Pakistan of dated 8th October 2011 reported in Masood Bhattie & Others Vs Federation of Pakistan PTCL & others 2012 SCMR 152.
DRAFT
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF
PAKISTAN .
CONTEMPT PETITION NO._____________________ /C/2018
IN
WRIT PETITION NO:
1. _____________ S or D/O _______________
Adult, Muslim/ _____________ (by caste,)
Retired_______ (B- )
CNIC NO_________________________________
Resident of __________________________
2.
3.
.
.
PETITIONERS
Versus
1. Federation of Pakistan (The Guarantor)
Through the Secretary Ministry Information & Technology
Ministry of Information & Technology
4th Floor Evacuee Trust Building
Islamabad.
2. Federal Secretary Ministry Information & Technology
Ministry of Information & Technology
4th Floor Evacuee Trust Building
Islamabad
3. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd,
Through its President,
Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd.
PTCL HQs.G-8/4
Islamabad.
4. Mr. Daniel Ritz
President & CEO PTCL
Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd.
PTCL HQs, G-8/4
Islamabad.
5. Pakistan Telecom Employees Trust
Through its Managing Director
Pakistan Telecom Employee Trust
Tele-House Mouve Area
G-10/4 Kashmir Highway
Islamabad
6. Mr. Hamid Farooq
Managing Director PTET
Pakistan Telecom Employee Trust
Tele-House Mouve Area
G-10/4 Kashmir Highway
Islamabad
7.Syed Mazhar Hussain
Senior Executive Vice President (HRA)
Chairman Board of Trustees of Trust
Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd.
PTCL HQs. G-8/4
Islamabad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Respondents/Condemners
C O N T E M P T P E T I T I O N
UNDER ARTICLE 204(2a) & 2(d) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN 1973, READ WITH SECTION 3 & 4 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1976 ALONG WITH ALL ENABLING PROVISIONS OF LAW.
RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-
1. That the addresses of the parties have been correctly given in the title of this petition which are sufficient for service of summons or any other process that can may be issued by this Hon'ble Court.
2. That through the instant contempt petition, the petitioner humbly seeks indulgence of this Hon'ble Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for disobeying and disregarding order of dated 12-06-2015, passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistsn.The petitioner made representation/issued notice [Annex- ] for the grant of increase in pension as per government of Pakistan accordingly as per order of dated 12-06-2015 of the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan contained in PTET Vs Muhammad Arif 2015 S C M R 1472 [Annex- ]
A) BRIEF HISTORY:
Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd (PTCL) Respondent # 3 and Pakistan Telecom Employees Trust (PTET) Respondent # 4 were established as a result of splitting of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC) in to five entities i.e. 1) Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), 2)The Frequency Allocation Board (FAB),3) National Telecommunication Corporation (NTC), 4) Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd (PTCL) and Pakistan Telecom Employees Trust (PTET) under Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act 1996 [ACT XVII OF 1996 i.e. An act to provide to provide for re-organization of telecommunication system]. The Company i.e. PTCL was established under Section 34(1) of PT (Re-organization) Act 1996 where Trust i.e. PTET was established under Section 44(1) of the said Act of 1996. The Service Terms and Conditions of those transferred employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC) to the Company i.e. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd (PTCL) on 1st January 1996 were duly protected accordingly as per Section 36 of the said Act of 1996.All such transferred employees in PTCL from PTC, are defined as "telecommunication employees" according to the Section 2(t) of the PT(Re-organization) Act 1996.The main purpose to establish the Pakistan Telecom Employees Trust (PTET) was to disburse pension to the retired telecommunication employees i.e. of those employees who were appointed in erstwhile T&T Dept of Government of Pakistan and retired there, those transferred to the Corporation i.e. PTC and retired there and those transferred to the Company i.e. PTCL and retired and would be retired there i.e. in PTCL.The Trust i.e. PTET is run by a board of trustees of six members, including three members from PTCL and three members appointed by Federal Govt. In Function of Power of the Board of Trustees of the Trust as per Section 46(1) (d) of PT (Re-organization) Act 1996, , the Trust is responsible to make provision of the payment of Pensions to all telecommunication employees to the extent of their entitlement. Since from its establishment wef 1st January, the Trust were disbursing the Pensions to all such retired employees of PTCL as per Government of Pakistan announcement accordingly for its retired civil servants. And whenever the Government of Pakistan increase the Pension , the PTET always increased the same pension to its retired telecommunication employees etc.But after the privatization of PTCL in June 2007, when Eitelselate a UAE base foreign Telecommunication Company took over the Management responsibly ,the PTET board of trustees discontinued the increase in pension as per GoP with effect 01-07-2010 and started to their own. When on 27th January 2011 , the PTET issued regarding the increase in pension for 2010-2011 wef 1st July 2010 contrary to the increase of pension as per GoP , announced by the Finance Division of GoP vide their Notification of dated 5th July 2010 , it was challenged by Muhammad Arif EX DG DEV PTCL along with 33 others senior retired officers of B-19 to B-21 and they filed a writ petition in Islamabad High Court in January 2011 namely Muhammad Arif etc Vs Federation of Pakistan etc number WP-148/2011 . The single bench comprised by honorable Ex Chief Justice Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman accepted the constitutional petition of the Petitioners and in his order of dated 21st December 2011, directed PTET to pay the pensions Petitioners according to the increase made by the Government along with the arrears if any. PTET filed an intra court appeal i.e. ICA No 09 of 2012 i.e. Pakistan Telecom Employees Trust (PTET) Versus Muhammad Arif etc, which was dismissed on the 17th March 2014 by IHC. Pakistan Telecom Employees Trust (PTET) filed Civil Petitions N0 565 -568 & 582-584 of 2014 Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was clubbed with other such types of about 17 civil petitions of PTET and PTCL.The HSCP dismissed all these petitions on 12th June 2015 by announcing the decision on the Civil Petitions Nos 565 -568 & 582-584 of 2014.According to the this said decision of dated 12th June 2015 , of three members of HSCP bench headed by Honorable Ex-CJ Nasir-ul-Mulk , declared that "the respondents , who were the employees of T&T Department having retired after their transfer to the Corporation and the Company will be entitled of the same pension as announced by the Government of Pakistan and Board of the trustees of the Trust is bound to follow such announcement of Government in respect of such employees. This now reported in PTET Vs Muhammad Arif 2015 S C M R 1472. This decision of three member bench of HSCP was actually based upon the decision Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in case Masood Bhattie & others vs. Federation of Pakistan & Others (2012 SCMR 152) attained finally on 19th February 2016 when civil review petition of PTCL was dismissed reported in 2016 SCMR 1362.[ According to it the employees of the Corporation (PTC) who stood transferred to the Company (PTCL) on the 1st January 1996 and became its employees , would be governed by statutory rules of Federal Government of Pakistan. Their Terms and Conditions of their Service cannot be altered by the PTCL for their disadvantages .Even Federal Government is debarred to do so by virtue of Section-35 of PT (Re-organization) Act 1996.Where Federal Government shall guarantee the existing terms and condition of the service & rights including pensioner benefits of such employees of PTCL but this protection of Federal Government would not be available to those employees of the Company who joined the PTCL after 1st January 1996 ]. The PTET filed review constitution petition (CRP) number 574 &575 of 2015 against HSCP decision of dated 12-06-2015 on the rejection of their appeal i.e. Civil Petitions Nos 565 -568 & 582-584 of 2014 but also against all their other appeals dismissed by the HSCP in the said order. In the mean time two respondents of the case i.e. Sadiq Ali & Naseem Vohra filed contempt of court case against PTET for not implementing the said order of dated 12-06-2015 of HSCP, bearing numbers Crl C.P 53/2015 & 54/2015 respectively. Where Muhammad Arif & others had already filed contempt petition in IHC in 2012 number 02 of 2012 for not implementing order of the court of dated 21-12-2011 . All these contempt petitions were kept remain pending in HSCP and in IHC till the decision of CRPs of PTET and PTCL against the verdicts of HSCP of dated 12-06-2015 was not arrived. When all such CRPs of PTET and PTCL dismissed by HSCP on 17th May 2017, the hearing on these pending contempt cases started. On 15th February 2018, the two member bench of HSCP directed PTET to effect the payments of increase of pension as per GoP to the petitioners beside the petitioners who accepted VSS (Violently Separation Scheme) and retired. This order of HSCP, infects was ultra virus in the opinion of the petitioners as two members bench judges' changed the decision of three members bench decision of dated 12-06-2015 by ordering that the increase in pension as per GoP be given to the petitioners [ respondents of the CRPs of PTET &PTCL dismissed on 12-06-2015] beside VSS. Where no such order, for not giving the increase of pension as per GoP to those respondents who retired after accepting VSS, was given. Simply it was ordered that "the respondents, who were the employees of T&T Department having retired after their transfer to the Corporation and the Company will be entitled of the same pension as announced by the Government of Pakistan and Board of the trustees of the Trust is bound to follow such announcement of Government in respect of such employees. In fact Sadiq Ali who filed the contempt case i.e. number Crl C.P 53/2015 was the respondent who had been retired after accepting the VSS in 2008 but he was the employee of T&T Deptt who first transferred to the Corporation then transferred to Company and retired. The PTET had not granted the pension increase as per GoP to all such petitioners who retired after the accepting the VSS and even also petitioner TPA i.e. Telecom Pension Association (Regd) representing all pensioners of PTCL and on behalf of that Mr. Naseem Vohra filed the contempt case i.e. Crl C.P 54/2015.The PTET also did not pay such increase in pension to all non petitioners of the case and hence violated the principle laid down by the HSCP in Hameed Akhtar Niazi case i.e. Hameed Akhtar Niazi Vs Secretary Establishment Govt of Pakistan re: 1996 S C M R 1185 that that the decision of Service Tribunal or Supreme Court in favor of a civil servant in point of law who has litigated the case will be extended to all such civil servant having the same issue and have not litigated the case beside it they are directed to approach Supreme Court or any other forums to get the same. The petitioner has issued notice to the respondent No 4 &6 with copies to respondent 2 and the Registrar of HSCP Islamabad for the implementation of decision of 12-6-2015 HSCP within 15 days in accordance to the principle laid down by Hameed Akhtar Niazi case by HSCP i.e. 1996 S C M R 1185 but PTET neither implemented the same nor any reply has been given them that why they are reluctant. So to implement HSCP order of dated 12th June 2015 this contempt appeal is being filed from the Petitioner.
.
B. FACTS OF THE CASE
That succinctly stated facts giving rise to the filing of instant contempt petition are that the petitioner:-
1. Named joined the erstwhile Government of Pakistan Telegraph & Telephone Department on regular post of _________ (Grade-) on the date _____.His/Her joining in Government T&T Department was carried , in accordance as to the Federal Government of Pakistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules-1973 . After the establishment of Corporation i.e. Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC), in December 1991, as per Section 9(1) of PTC Act-1991, his/her 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, which he had in T&T department just before his/her transfer to Corporation i.e. in PTC.
2. On the date 1st January 1996, the petitioner 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 he/her had in PTC.And from PTCL, he/her had been retired at the superannuation age of sixty years/premature retirement/compulsory retired/retirement after accepting VSS/ from the post of _______ (B-) wef ____ as per Notification vide PTCL H/Qrs Inter Office Memo No ________________of 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, attained finally on 19th February 2016 (2016 SCMR 1362) .Thus it had been confirmed finally that the regular 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 has any power to alter their such Terms and conditions of Service for their disadvantages. Where the Federal Government of Pakistan would the guarantor for their existing terms and conditions of service and rights including pensioner benefits.
4. The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in her verdicts of dated 12th June 2015 reported in PTET Vs Muhammad Arif 2015 S C M R 1472 ,declared that "the respondents , who were the employees of T&T Department having retired after their transfer to the Corporation and the Company will be entitled of the same pension as announced by the Government of Pakistan and Board of the trustees of the Trust is bound to follow such announcement of Government in respect of such employees. Where PTET implemented this decision partially to the respondents of the case only but not on the others, who were not respondents i.e. all such employees of PTCL who had not litigated the case, contrary to the principle laid down by the HSCP in Hameed Akhtar Niazi case i.e. Hameed Akhtar Niazi Vs Secretary Establishment Govt of Pakistan re: 1996 S C M R 1185 that the decision of Service Tribunal or Supreme Court in favor of a civil servant in point of law who has litigated the case will be extended to all such civil servant having the same issue and have not litigated the case beside it ,they are directed to approach Supreme Court ,Service Tribunal or any other forums to get the same
5. The Petitioner filed the representations/notices of dated _______ to the Respondents No 4&6 with copy to the Respondent No 2 for the grant of increase in his/her pension as per GoP in accordance to the directive of HSCP of dated 12th June 2015 as stated above. The copies of such representations/notices were duly receipt by the concerned respondents but no any action has been taken by the concern authorities to till date . Neither any payment of increase in pension as per GoP has been given nor any reply, within stipulated time given notice. .
6. Where contrary to the directive of HSCP of dated 12th June 2015,the respondent No 5 issued the notification bearing number Pen/PTET/LHR/29085 dated 20-12-2017 issued [Image Copy Annex ____], for the increase of pension as per PTCL i.e. 7.5% increase in pension for those pensioners retired in normal way and 6.5% for those who retired after accepting VSSs, Where GoP announced 10% to all govt civil servant pensioners vide Government Finance Division Notification# F.4(1)-Reg.6/2017-831 Dated 3rd July 2017 wef 1-7-2017 [ Copy attached__]
7. As the respondents did not extend the benefits of the decision of HSCP of dated 12th June 2015 to the non respondents i.e. to all other such employees of PTCL who did not litigate the case, contrary the principle laid down by HSCP in Hameed Akhtar Niazi case re:1996 S C M R 1185 thus they all are alleged condemners.
C. GROUNDS
1. The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan set a rule and principle in Hameed Akhtar Niazi vs. Secretary Establishment Federal Government & others reported in 1996 SCMR 1185 that the :- "Similarly placed employees- - -Entitlement of the same relief---Point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant decided by Service Tribunal or the Supreme Court---Where such point of law covered not only the case of civil servants who litigated, but also other civil servants, who may have not taken any legal proceedings, the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demanded that the benefit of the point of law be extended to other civil servant, who may not be the parties to the litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or the Supreme Court or any other legal forum.".Here in this case the basic point of law is that the HSCP in its verdicts of dated 12-6-2015 i.e. in PTET Vs Muhammad Arif 2015 S C M R 1472 that "the respondents , who were the employees of T&T Department having retired after their transfer to the Corporation and the Company will be entitled of the same pension as announced by the Government of Pakistan and Board of the trustees of the Trust is bound to follow such announcement of Government in respect of such employees. Hence all such employees of PTCL who were not the parties of the case, are also required to be benefited same accordingly to the set principal & law of HSCP.
2. In the case of "Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi and others. Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others" commonly known as Ms. Anita Turab case (PLD 2013 S.C. 195), reconfirmed by three members of Honorable judges bench of HSCP headed by Ex CJ S A Khawja about the importance of this rule, the relating paras 20 & 21 are reproduced here;
"20) The above referred precedents have shaped the contours of the law relating to civil servants and the civil service. In the established tradition of a common law jurisdiction, Article 189 of the Constitution stipulates that, "[any decision of the Supreme Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding on all other courts in Pakistan." As this Court has already held "... the interpretation of the various Articles by this Court becomes part of the Constitution". Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 SC 84). Specific to the law relating to civil servants and matters in respect of their service, we have enunciated a principle of law in the case titled Hameed Akhtar Niazi versus The Secretary Establishment Division (1996 SCMR 1185) holding that a decision given by this Court on a point of law will be binding on concerned departmental functionaries who will be obliged to apply such legal principle in other similar cases regardless of whether or not a civil servant has litigated the matter in his own case. We are conscious that in some instances the application of a legal principle enunciated in a precedent may be possible without difficulty or ambiguity, while in other cases there may be some uncertainty in determining if a legal principle is in fact applicable as precedent. It is, however, clear that in view of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution, a civil servant will be entitled to make a departmental representation or initiate legal proceedings before a competent forum to enforce a legal principle enunciated by this Court.
21. In appropriate cases the failure of a state functionary to apply a legal principle which is clearly and unambiguously attracted to a case, may expose him to proceedings also under Article 204(2)(a) of the Constitution. This article, it may be recalled, grants this Court the power to punish for contempt any person who "disobeys any order of the Court". In a recent judgment, the Court has clarified the significance of the law of contempt as an enforcement mechanism. It was held "...the Court, in and of itself, has to pass orders and to require the implementation of its orders; responsibility for implementation has been made obligatory on other organs of the state, primarily the Executive. However, in the unfortunate situation that a functionary of the Executive refuses to discharge his constitutional duty, the Court is empowered to punish him for contempt...Simply put, a government of laws cannot be created or continued with toothless courts and defiant or blithely non-compliant public functionaries". Baaz Muhammad Kakar vs. Federation of Pakistan (Const. P. No.77/2012). If there still remains any doubt, let us clarify that those executive functionaries who continue to ignore the Constitution and the law, do so at their own peril. "
3. Where the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan has also held in cases of ,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 such type cases in 2009, the Honorable Supreme Court held also that ," that those persons who litigated and those who did not, are to be treated alike, if similarly placed and positioned."
4. Recently on 21st December 2017 ,in case WAPDA through Chairman others Vs Abdul Ghaffar & others [2018 S C M R 380], the three members bench of HSCP headed by Honorable Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nasir dismissed the appeal WAPDA and decided the case in favor of those employees of the WAPDA who were not the party of the case those petitioners employees of WAPDA were benefited by the Service Tribunal who litigated the case.
5. It is precedent, whenever an order is passed by Service Tribunal or Supreme Court of Pakistan which attained finally, in favor of any civil servant or servants on the point of law, who litigate the case, the Government of Pakistan always implement such decisions to all other civil servants who do not the party of such case or cases and issues notifications accordingly. For example ,the Government of Pakistan Finance Division issued office memorandum No F.No. 11(1) R-2/2007/2007-2009 dated Islamabad 13th July 2010 [Copy Annex ] on the subject for the Grant of Increment in Terms of orders supreme Court of Pakistan Dated 22-06-2009. It had been ordered to allow the benefits of one increment to all those non petitioner pensioners of GoP on their retirements ,which were stuck up on maximum stage of their respective pay scales. This was the order of FST on an appeal of such petitioner pension who had been stuck up maximum stage of respective his respective pay scale at the time of his retirement. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld this decision of FST. Similarly, in 2012-2013 the Government of Pakistan Finance Division issued office memorandum No F. 13 (13)- Reg.6/2011 dated Islamabad 21st January 2013 [Copy Annex ] regarding to allow all increases sectioned by the Government of Pakistan during the period of their retirement till restoration of commuted portion of pension with all consequential benefits to non petitioner pensioners as allowed by the FST vide its order of dated 05-01-2012 and upheld HSCP vide its judgment dated 24-4-2012, subject to the conditions that if the constitutional petition filed by the Government is accepted by the Apex Court , the Government will recover all such amount [later on when CRP filed by Government was dismissed, this was stood confirmed] .The PTET never implemented such type 0f order of HSCP conditionally or even unconditionally. Even after dismissal of their review appeal on 17th May 2017 i.e. the PTET (Respondent # 5) did not obey the HSCP verdicts contained in its above said order of dated 12th June 2015 .But contrary to , the Board of Trustees of PTET (Respondents # (5) never approved the increase in pension all such pensioners as per GoP. Where in great violation of such judgment PTET Board of Trustees in their 81st meeting held on 04th December 2017 , approved increase in pension for the year 2017-2018 for all VSS Pensioners 6.0% and for Non VSS Pensioners 7.5%, . The notification of the same was issued on 20th December 2017 bearing number Pen/PTET/LHR/29085 dated 20-12-2017 issued [Image Copy Annex ____].Not according to the GoP i.e. 10% to all Govt pensioners uniformly , not according to Government Finance Division Notification# F.4(1)-Reg.6/2017-831 Dated 3rd July 2017 wef 1-7-2017 [Copy Annex___]. It is to be noted that how greatly they violated the HSCP order of dated 12th June 2015.The HSCP had ordered the PTET to grant increase in pensioners who were the employees T&T and then retired after their transferred to Corporation and then in Company ,irrespective of the facts whether they are retired normal way or by accepting VSSs [Voluntarily Separation Schemes] etc.
D.PRAYERS:-
The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Honorable Court may be pleased to:-
a) direct respondent # 5 firstly, to issue Notification immediately in accordance to the directive of the HSCP of dated 12th June 2015 in the case Pakistan Telecom Employees Trust (PTET) Versus Muhammad Arif etc re : 2015 S C M R 1472 to implement the same on all such pensioners of PTCL
b) direct respondent #5 for the same increase in the pension of the petitioner as per GoP and arrears of the same, be given wef 1st July 2010 i.e. the date from which it was discontinued within one week wef after the issuance of the said Notification by PTET.
c) In case the respondent #5 fails to implement the order HSCP of dated 12th June 2015 per in given time in true spirit, contempt of court proceedings be started against the Respondents 6&7 as they would be actually responsible for it and the guarantor i.e. the Respondent 1 Federal Government may be directed to implement the order of the HSCP of dated 12th June 2015 accordingly.
d) to grant such order/further relief /compensation or pass such other orders as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the circumstances of orders in the case and
e) award costs of the petition to the petitioner
.
[ PETITONER]
Dated…………….
.
Sent from Tariq's iPad from Rawalpindi Pakistan
Regards
Muhammad Tariq Azhar
Retired General Manager (OPS) PTCL
Email: azhar.tariq@gmail.com
Cell#: + 92-314-9525902
+92-345-5211167
Draft of Contempt of Court Petition from the non Petitioners PTCL Pensioner
Contempt of Court Petition from non Petitioner Pensioner, for initiating contempt proceedings against the PTET & PTCL, in the light of Supreme Court of Pakistan ruling in case of Hameed Akhtar Niazi Vs Secretary Establishment of Pakistan reported in
1996 S C M R 1185 for not extending the benefits of increase in pension to those such non petitioners who were not the party and did not litigate the case in Muhammad Arif & others Vs Federation of Pakistan in IHC which was in favour of the petitioners, against of which the appeal of PTET had been dismissed by the HSCP on 12th June 2015 as reported in 2015 S C M R 1472 by directing that Pakistan Telecom Employees Trust i.e. PTET is bound to pay the increase in pension as per announcement of Government of Pakistan to the respondents which were Transferred employees in PTCL having statutory rules provision as per verdict of Supreme Court of Pakistan of dated 8th October 2011 reported in Masood Bhattie & Others Vs Federation of Pakistan PTCL & others 2012 SCMR 152.
DRAFT
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF
PAKISTAN .
CONTEMPT PETITION NO._____________________ /C/2018
IN
WRIT PETITION NO:
1. _____________ S or D/O _______________
Adult, Muslim/ _____________ (by caste,)
Retired_______ (B- )
CNIC NO_________________________________
Resident of __________________________
2.
3.
.
.
PETITIONERS
Versus
1. Federation of Pakistan (The Guarantor)
Through the Secretary Ministry Information & Technology
Ministry of Information & Technology
4th Floor Evacuee Trust Building
Islamabad.
2. Federal Secretary Ministry Information & Technology
Ministry of Information & Technology
4th Floor Evacuee Trust Building
Islamabad
3. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd,
Through its President,
Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd.
PTCL HQs.G-8/4
Islamabad.
4. Mr. Daniel Ritz
President & CEO PTCL
Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd.
PTCL HQs, G-8/4
Islamabad.
5. Pakistan Telecom Employees Trust
Through its Managing Director
Pakistan Telecom Employee Trust
Tele-House Mouve Area
G-10/4 Kashmir Highway
Islamabad
6. Mr. Hamid Farooq
Managing Director PTET
Pakistan Telecom Employee Trust
Tele-House Mouve Area
G-10/4 Kashmir Highway
Islamabad
7.Syed Mazhar Hussain
Senior Executive Vice President (HRA)
Chairman Board of Trustees of Trust
Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd.
PTCL HQs. G-8/4
Islamabad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Respondents/Condemners
C O N T E M P T P E T I T I O N
UNDER ARTICLE 204(2a) & 2(d) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN 1973, READ WITH SECTION 3 & 4 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1976 ALONG WITH ALL ENABLING PROVISIONS OF LAW.
RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-
1. That the addresses of the parties have been correctly given in the title of this petition which are sufficient for service of summons or any other process that can may be issued by this Hon'ble Court.
2. That through the instant contempt petition, the petitioner humbly seeks indulgence of this Hon'ble Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for disobeying and disregarding order of dated 12-06-2015, passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistsn.The petitioner made representation/issued notice [Annex- ] for the grant of increase in pension as per government of Pakistan accordingly as per order of dated 12-06-2015 of the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan contained in PTET Vs Muhammad Arif 2015 S C M R 1472 [Annex- ]
A) BRIEF HISTORY:
Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd (PTCL) Respondent # 3 and Pakistan Telecom Employees Trust (PTET) Respondent # 4 were established as a result of splitting of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC) in to five entities i.e. 1) Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), 2)The Frequency Allocation Board (FAB),3) National Telecommunication Corporation (NTC), 4) Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd (PTCL) and Pakistan Telecom Employees Trust (PTET) under Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act 1996 [ACT XVII OF 1996 i.e. An act to provide to provide for re-organization of telecommunication system]. The Company i.e. PTCL was established under Section 34(1) of PT (Re-organization) Act 1996 where Trust i.e. PTET was established under Section 44(1) of the said Act of 1996. The Service Terms and Conditions of those transferred employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC) to the Company i.e. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd (PTCL) on 1st January 1996 were duly protected accordingly as per Section 36 of the said Act of 1996.All such transferred employees in PTCL from PTC, are defined as "telecommunication employees" according to the Section 2(t) of the PT(Re-organization) Act 1996.The main purpose to establish the Pakistan Telecom Employees Trust (PTET) was to disburse pension to the retired telecommunication employees i.e. of those employees who were appointed in erstwhile T&T Dept of Government of Pakistan and retired there, those transferred to the Corporation i.e. PTC and retired there and those transferred to the Company i.e. PTCL and retired and would be retired there i.e. in PTCL.The Trust i.e. PTET is run by a board of trustees of six members, including three members from PTCL and three members appointed by Federal Govt. In Function of Power of the Board of Trustees of the Trust as per Section 46(1) (d) of PT (Re-organization) Act 1996, , the Trust is responsible to make provision of the payment of Pensions to all telecommunication employees to the extent of their entitlement. Since from its establishment wef 1st January, the Trust were disbursing the Pensions to all such retired employees of PTCL as per Government of Pakistan announcement accordingly for its retired civil servants. And whenever the Government of Pakistan increase the Pension , the PTET always increased the same pension to its retired telecommunication employees etc.But after the privatization of PTCL in June 2007, when Eitelselate a UAE base foreign Telecommunication Company took over the Management responsibly ,the PTET board of trustees discontinued the increase in pension as per GoP with effect 01-07-2010 and started to their own. When on 27th January 2011 , the PTET issued regarding the increase in pension for 2010-2011 wef 1st July 2010 contrary to the increase of pension as per GoP , announced by the Finance Division of GoP vide their Notification of dated 5th July 2010 , it was challenged by Muhammad Arif EX DG DEV PTCL along with 33 others senior retired officers of B-19 to B-21 and they filed a writ petition in Islamabad High Court in January 2011 namely Muhammad Arif etc Vs Federation of Pakistan etc number WP-148/2011 . The single bench comprised by honorable Ex Chief Justice Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman accepted the constitutional petition of the Petitioners and in his order of dated 21st December 2011, directed PTET to pay the pensions Petitioners according to the increase made by the Government along with the arrears if any. PTET filed an intra court appeal i.e. ICA No 09 of 2012 i.e. Pakistan Telecom Employees Trust (PTET) Versus Muhammad Arif etc, which was dismissed on the 17th March 2014 by IHC. Pakistan Telecom Employees Trust (PTET) filed Civil Petitions N0 565 -568 & 582-584 of 2014 Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was clubbed with other such types of about 17 civil petitions of PTET and PTCL.The HSCP dismissed all these petitions on 12th June 2015 by announcing the decision on the Civil Petitions Nos 565 -568 & 582-584 of 2014.According to the this said decision of dated 12th June 2015 , of three members of HSCP bench headed by Honorable Ex-CJ Nasir-ul-Mulk , declared that "the respondents , who were the employees of T&T Department having retired after their transfer to the Corporation and the Company will be entitled of the same pension as announced by the Government of Pakistan and Board of the trustees of the Trust is bound to follow such announcement of Government in respect of such employees. This now reported in PTET Vs Muhammad Arif 2015 S C M R 1472. This decision of three member bench of HSCP was actually based upon the decision Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in case Masood Bhattie & others vs. Federation of Pakistan & Others (2012 SCMR 152) attained finally on 19th February 2016 when civil review petition of PTCL was dismissed reported in 2016 SCMR 1362.[ According to it the employees of the Corporation (PTC) who stood transferred to the Company (PTCL) on the 1st January 1996 and became its employees , would be governed by statutory rules of Federal Government of Pakistan. Their Terms and Conditions of their Service cannot be altered by the PTCL for their disadvantages .Even Federal Government is debarred to do so by virtue of Section-35 of PT (Re-organization) Act 1996.Where Federal Government shall guarantee the existing terms and condition of the service & rights including pensioner benefits of such employees of PTCL but this protection of Federal Government would not be available to those employees of the Company who joined the PTCL after 1st January 1996 ]. The PTET filed review constitution petition (CRP) number 574 &575 of 2015 against HSCP decision of dated 12-06-2015 on the rejection of their appeal i.e. Civil Petitions Nos 565 -568 & 582-584 of 2014 but also against all their other appeals dismissed by the HSCP in the said order. In the mean time two respondents of the case i.e. Sadiq Ali & Naseem Vohra filed contempt of court case against PTET for not implementing the said order of dated 12-06-2015 of HSCP, bearing numbers Crl C.P 53/2015 & 54/2015 respectively. Where Muhammad Arif & others had already filed contempt petition in IHC in 2012 number 02 of 2012 for not implementing order of the court of dated 21-12-2011 . All these contempt petitions were kept remain pending in HSCP and in IHC till the decision of CRPs of PTET and PTCL against the verdicts of HSCP of dated 12-06-2015 was not arrived. When all such CRPs of PTET and PTCL dismissed by HSCP on 17th May 2017, the hearing on these pending contempt cases started. On 15th February 2018, the two member bench of HSCP directed PTET to effect the payments of increase of pension as per GoP to the petitioners beside the petitioners who accepted VSS (Violently Separation Scheme) and retired. This order of HSCP, infects was ultra virus in the opinion of the petitioners as two members bench judges' changed the decision of three members bench decision of dated 12-06-2015 by ordering that the increase in pension as per GoP be given to the petitioners [ respondents of the CRPs of PTET &PTCL dismissed on 12-06-2015] beside VSS. Where no such order, for not giving the increase of pension as per GoP to those respondents who retired after accepting VSS, was given. Simply it was ordered that "the respondents, who were the employees of T&T Department having retired after their transfer to the Corporation and the Company will be entitled of the same pension as announced by the Government of Pakistan and Board of the trustees of the Trust is bound to follow such announcement of Government in respect of such employees. In fact Sadiq Ali who filed the contempt case i.e. number Crl C.P 53/2015 was the respondent who had been retired after accepting the VSS in 2008 but he was the employee of T&T Deptt who first transferred to the Corporation then transferred to Company and retired. The PTET had not granted the pension increase as per GoP to all such petitioners who retired after the accepting the VSS and even also petitioner TPA i.e. Telecom Pension Association (Regd) representing all pensioners of PTCL and on behalf of that Mr. Naseem Vohra filed the contempt case i.e. Crl C.P 54/2015.The PTET also did not pay such increase in pension to all non petitioners of the case and hence violated the principle laid down by the HSCP in Hameed Akhtar Niazi case i.e. Hameed Akhtar Niazi Vs Secretary Establishment Govt of Pakistan re: 1996 S C M R 1185 that that the decision of Service Tribunal or Supreme Court in favor of a civil servant in point of law who has litigated the case will be extended to all such civil servant having the same issue and have not litigated the case beside it they are directed to approach Supreme Court or any other forums to get the same. The petitioner has issued notice to the respondent No 4 &6 with copies to respondent 2 and the Registrar of HSCP Islamabad for the implementation of decision of 12-6-2015 HSCP within 15 days in accordance to the principle laid down by Hameed Akhtar Niazi case by HSCP i.e. 1996 S C M R 1185 but PTET neither implemented the same nor any reply has been given them that why they are reluctant. So to implement HSCP order of dated 12th June 2015 this contempt appeal is being filed from the Petitioner.
.
B. FACTS OF THE CASE
That succinctly stated facts giving rise to the filing of instant contempt petition are that the petitioner:-
1. Named joined the erstwhile Government of Pakistan Telegraph & Telephone Department on regular post of _________ (Grade-) on the date _____.His/Her joining in Government T&T Department was carried , in accordance as to the Federal Government of Pakistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules-1973 . After the establishment of Corporation i.e. Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC), in December 1991, as per Section 9(1) of PTC Act-1991, his/her 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, which he had in T&T department just before his/her transfer to Corporation i.e. in PTC.
2. On the date 1st January 1996, the petitioner 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 he/her had in PTC.And from PTCL, he/her had been retired at the superannuation age of sixty years/premature retirement/compulsory retired/retirement after accepting VSS/ from the post of _______ (B-) wef ____ as per Notification vide PTCL H/Qrs Inter Office Memo No ________________of 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, attained finally on 19th February 2016 (2016 SCMR 1362) .Thus it had been confirmed finally that the regular 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 has any power to alter their such Terms and conditions of Service for their disadvantages. Where the Federal Government of Pakistan would the guarantor for their existing terms and conditions of service and rights including pensioner benefits.
4. The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in her verdicts of dated 12th June 2015 reported in PTET Vs Muhammad Arif 2015 S C M R 1472 ,declared that "the respondents , who were the employees of T&T Department having retired after their transfer to the Corporation and the Company will be entitled of the same pension as announced by the Government of Pakistan and Board of the trustees of the Trust is bound to follow such announcement of Government in respect of such employees. Where PTET implemented this decision partially to the respondents of the case only but not on the others, who were not respondents i.e. all such employees of PTCL who had not litigated the case, contrary to the principle laid down by the HSCP in Hameed Akhtar Niazi case i.e. Hameed Akhtar Niazi Vs Secretary Establishment Govt of Pakistan re: 1996 S C M R 1185 that the decision of Service Tribunal or Supreme Court in favor of a civil servant in point of law who has litigated the case will be extended to all such civil servant having the same issue and have not litigated the case beside it ,they are directed to approach Supreme Court ,Service Tribunal or any other forums to get the same
5. The Petitioner filed the representations/notices of dated _______ to the Respondents No 4&6 with copy to the Respondent No 2 for the grant of increase in his/her pension as per GoP in accordance to the directive of HSCP of dated 12th June 2015 as stated above. The copies of such representations/notices were duly receipt by the concerned respondents but no any action has been taken by the concern authorities to till date . Neither any payment of increase in pension as per GoP has been given nor any reply, within stipulated time given notice. .
6. Where contrary to the directive of HSCP of dated 12th June 2015,the respondent No 5 issued the notification bearing number Pen/PTET/LHR/29085 dated 20-12-2017 issued [Image Copy Annex ____], for the increase of pension as per PTCL i.e. 7.5% increase in pension for those pensioners retired in normal way and 6.5% for those who retired after accepting VSSs, Where GoP announced 10% to all govt civil servant pensioners vide Government Finance Division Notification# F.4(1)-Reg.6/2017-831 Dated 3rd July 2017 wef 1-7-2017 [ Copy attached__]
7. As the respondents did not extend the benefits of the decision of HSCP of dated 12th June 2015 to the non respondents i.e. to all other such employees of PTCL who did not litigate the case, contrary the principle laid down by HSCP in Hameed Akhtar Niazi case re:1996 S C M R 1185 thus they all are alleged condemners.
C. GROUNDS
1. The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan set a rule and principle in Hameed Akhtar Niazi vs. Secretary Establishment Federal Government & others reported in 1996 SCMR 1185 that the :- "Similarly placed employees- - -Entitlement of the same relief---Point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant decided by Service Tribunal or the Supreme Court---Where such point of law covered not only the case of civil servants who litigated, but also other civil servants, who may have not taken any legal proceedings, the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demanded that the benefit of the point of law be extended to other civil servant, who may not be the parties to the litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or the Supreme Court or any other legal forum.".Here in this case the basic point of law is that the HSCP in its verdicts of dated 12-6-2015 i.e. in PTET Vs Muhammad Arif 2015 S C M R 1472 that "the respondents , who were the employees of T&T Department having retired after their transfer to the Corporation and the Company will be entitled of the same pension as announced by the Government of Pakistan and Board of the trustees of the Trust is bound to follow such announcement of Government in respect of such employees. Hence all such employees of PTCL who were not the parties of the case, are also required to be benefited same accordingly to the set principal & law of HSCP.
2. In the case of "Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi and others. Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others" commonly known as Ms. Anita Turab case (PLD 2013 S.C. 195), reconfirmed by three members of Honorable judges bench of HSCP headed by Ex CJ S A Khawja about the importance of this rule, the relating paras 20 & 21 are reproduced here;
"20) The above referred precedents have shaped the contours of the law relating to civil servants and the civil service. In the established tradition of a common law jurisdiction, Article 189 of the Constitution stipulates that, "[any decision of the Supreme Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding on all other courts in Pakistan." As this Court has already held "... the interpretation of the various Articles by this Court becomes part of the Constitution". Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 SC 84). Specific to the law relating to civil servants and matters in respect of their service, we have enunciated a principle of law in the case titled Hameed Akhtar Niazi versus The Secretary Establishment Division (1996 SCMR 1185) holding that a decision given by this Court on a point of law will be binding on concerned departmental functionaries who will be obliged to apply such legal principle in other similar cases regardless of whether or not a civil servant has litigated the matter in his own case. We are conscious that in some instances the application of a legal principle enunciated in a precedent may be possible without difficulty or ambiguity, while in other cases there may be some uncertainty in determining if a legal principle is in fact applicable as precedent. It is, however, clear that in view of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution, a civil servant will be entitled to make a departmental representation or initiate legal proceedings before a competent forum to enforce a legal principle enunciated by this Court.
21. In appropriate cases the failure of a state functionary to apply a legal principle which is clearly and unambiguously attracted to a case, may expose him to proceedings also under Article 204(2)(a) of the Constitution. This article, it may be recalled, grants this Court the power to punish for contempt any person who "disobeys any order of the Court". In a recent judgment, the Court has clarified the significance of the law of contempt as an enforcement mechanism. It was held "...the Court, in and of itself, has to pass orders and to require the implementation of its orders; responsibility for implementation has been made obligatory on other organs of the state, primarily the Executive. However, in the unfortunate situation that a functionary of the Executive refuses to discharge his constitutional duty, the Court is empowered to punish him for contempt...Simply put, a government of laws cannot be created or continued with toothless courts and defiant or blithely non-compliant public functionaries". Baaz Muhammad Kakar vs. Federation of Pakistan (Const. P. No.77/2012). If there still remains any doubt, let us clarify that those executive functionaries who continue to ignore the Constitution and the law, do so at their own peril. "
3. Where the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan has also held in cases of ,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 such type cases in 2009, the Honorable Supreme Court held also that ," that those persons who litigated and those who did not, are to be treated alike, if similarly placed and positioned."
4. Recently on 21st December 2017 ,in case WAPDA through Chairman others Vs Abdul Ghaffar & others [2018 S C M R 380], the three members bench of HSCP headed by Honorable Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nasir dismissed the appeal WAPDA and decided the case in favor of those employees of the WAPDA who were not the party of the case those petitioners employees of WAPDA were benefited by the Service Tribunal who litigated the case.
5. It is precedent, whenever an order is passed by Service Tribunal or Supreme Court of Pakistan which attained finally, in favor of any civil servant or servants on the point of law, who litigate the case, the Government of Pakistan always implement such decisions to all other civil servants who do not the party of such case or cases and issues notifications accordingly. For example ,the Government of Pakistan Finance Division issued office memorandum No F.No. 11(1) R-2/2007/2007-2009 dated Islamabad 13th July 2010 [Copy Annex ] on the subject for the Grant of Increment in Terms of orders supreme Court of Pakistan Dated 22-06-2009. It had been ordered to allow the benefits of one increment to all those non petitioner pensioners of GoP on their retirements ,which were stuck up on maximum stage of their respective pay scales. This was the order of FST on an appeal of such petitioner pension who had been stuck up maximum stage of respective his respective pay scale at the time of his retirement. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld this decision of FST. Similarly, in 2012-2013 the Government of Pakistan Finance Division issued office memorandum No F. 13 (13)- Reg.6/2011 dated Islamabad 21st January 2013 [Copy Annex ] regarding to allow all increases sectioned by the Government of Pakistan during the period of their retirement till restoration of commuted portion of pension with all consequential benefits to non petitioner pensioners as allowed by the FST vide its order of dated 05-01-2012 and upheld HSCP vide its judgment dated 24-4-2012, subject to the conditions that if the constitutional petition filed by the Government is accepted by the Apex Court , the Government will recover all such amount [later on when CRP filed by Government was dismissed, this was stood confirmed] .The PTET never implemented such type 0f order of HSCP conditionally or even unconditionally. Even after dismissal of their review appeal on 17th May 2017 i.e. the PTET (Respondent # 5) did not obey the HSCP verdicts contained in its above said order of dated 12th June 2015 .But contrary to , the Board of Trustees of PTET (Respondents # (5) never approved the increase in pension all such pensioners as per GoP. Where in great violation of such judgment PTET Board of Trustees in their 81st meeting held on 04th December 2017 , approved increase in pension for the year 2017-2018 for all VSS Pensioners 6.0% and for Non VSS Pensioners 7.5%, . The notification of the same was issued on 20th December 2017 bearing number Pen/PTET/LHR/29085 dated 20-12-2017 issued [Image Copy Annex ____].Not according to the GoP i.e. 10% to all Govt pensioners uniformly , not according to Government Finance Division Notification# F.4(1)-Reg.6/2017-831 Dated 3rd July 2017 wef 1-7-2017 [Copy Annex___]. It is to be noted that how greatly they violated the HSCP order of dated 12th June 2015.The HSCP had ordered the PTET to grant increase in pensioners who were the employees T&T and then retired after their transferred to Corporation and then in Company ,irrespective of the facts whether they are retired normal way or by accepting VSSs [Voluntarily Separation Schemes] etc.
D.PRAYERS:-
The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Honorable Court may be pleased to:-
a) direct respondent # 5 firstly, to issue Notification immediately in accordance to the directive of the HSCP of dated 12th June 2015 in the case Pakistan Telecom Employees Trust (PTET) Versus Muhammad Arif etc re : 2015 S C M R 1472 to implement the same on all such pensioners of PTCL
b) direct respondent #5 for the same increase in the pension of the petitioner as per GoP and arrears of the same, be given wef 1st July 2010 i.e. the date from which it was discontinued within one week wef after the issuance of the said Notification by PTET.
c) In case the respondent #5 fails to implement the order HSCP of dated 12th June 2015 per in given time in true spirit, contempt of court proceedings be started against the Respondents 6&7 as they would be actually responsible for it and the guarantor i.e. the Respondent 1 Federal Government may be directed to implement the order of the HSCP of dated 12th June 2015 accordingly.
d) to grant such order/further relief /compensation or pass such other orders as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the circumstances of orders in the case and
e) award costs of the petition to the petitioner
.
[ PETITONER]
Dated…………….
.
Sent from Tariq's iPad from Rawalpindi Pakistan
Comments