Article-102[ Regarding reply to PTET on their false reply on PMDU]
ATTENTION
پی ٹی ای ٹی کی وزیراعظم کے سٹیزن پوڑٹل پاکستان سیل پر غیر بیانی
عزیز پی ٹی سی ایل ساتھیو!
اسلام و علیکم
کچھ دن پہلے مجھے واٹس ایپس پر محترم جناب سلیم بٹ صاحب ریٹائیڑڈ جنرل منیجر پی ٹی سی ایل ( جو ۱۹۹۸ میں ریٹائیڑڈ ھوئیے تھے ) نے پی ٹی ای ٹی کا PMDU پر ایک شکایت ، جو پی ٹی سی ایل پنشنر وی ایس ایس ریٹائیڑڈ عبدالخالق نے کی تھی ، اسکا پی ٹی ای ٹی کی طرف سے دیا گیا جواب بھجوایا اور مجھ سے اسپر تبصرہ کرنے کا کہا ( یہ پی ٹی ای ٹی جواب میں نے نیچے پیسٹ کردیا ھے ھے) ۔ پی ٹی ای ٹی نے اس جواب کا آغاز " Closed Relief Cannot Be Granted" سے کیا یعنی انکا مطلب تھا جن کو ریلیف دینا تھا وہ دے چکے اب یہ مزید کسی اور کو نہیں دیا جاسکتا۔ میں نے انکا جواب بڑے غور سے پڑھا اور اپنا سر پکڑ لیا کے کس قدر انھوں غلط بیانی کام لیا ھے اور پرائیم منسٹر کی آنکھوں میں دھول جھونکنے کی کوشش کی ۔ میں نے اسکا مدلل جواب تو محترم سلیم بٹ صاحب کو اور اپنے اور واٹس ایپس دوستوں سے بھی شئیر کو تو کردیا ۔ بلاگ سائیٹ پر پڑھنے والوں کے لئیے نیچے تحریر کردیا ھے وہ بھی اس سے پڑھیں اور اپنے تبصرے سے نوازیں۔ شکریہ
واسلام
طارق
4-09-2019
PTET false and misconceived reply to Abid Khalique Pensioner (VSS-2008) through Citizen Portal Pakistan Portal that " Closed Relief Cannot be granted" . The correct position and reply is as under.
I am advising the MD PTET that he should read my this following reply with his open eyes and withdraw his this false statement . If he founds there is any legally defect in my this reply , he should also clarify the same on the basis legal grounds only.
Reply:
On 12 th June 2015 , the HSCP dismissed all the Petitions ( about 18 ) of PTET against the PTCL Pensioners Petitioners( the respondents ) with the direction to PTET for payment of pension increase as per GoP to the retired employees of PTCL accordingly as per announcement . What the three members bench ordered which had written by Honourable Judge Justice Gulzar Ahmed , is reproduced here.
" For the forgoing reasons , we have come to conclusions 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 same pension as is announced by the Government of Pakistan and the Board of Trustees of the Trust is to fallow such announcement of the Government in respect of such employees. Consequently , petitions are dismissed . "
It may be noted here that HSCP has used the words "in respect of such employees" and not of "such respondents " , so firstly according to this HSC P order PTET is legally bound to implement such order upon on all such retired employees of PTCL who were the employees of T&T department and retired after their transfer to PTC and PTCL . Secondly the PTET should had to also such order according to the principle law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Hameed Akhtar Niazi Vs Secretary Establishment Govt of Pakistan (1996 SCMR 1185) & in Anita Turab Ali Case namely Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2013 S.C. 195) etc on all retired employees of the PTCL , irrespective of the fact whether they had litigated the case or not.In Anita Turab Ali Case In th three three members Judges bench headed by respected ex C J S A Khawja who categorically clarified in Para -20 & 21, as summarised That: "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 case .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".
So PTET Board of Trustees members are deserved for such contempt of court as they implemented the decision of 12 th June 2015 on only those respondents ur who litigated the case and to other all non Petitioners Pensioners . They implemented the the said order on only normally retired respondents only . Where in fact there is no such order was passed by three members Judges in their order of dated the 12 th June 2015 . They only used the word " retired employees " and also had not written " except those employees retired by adopting VSS" .
PTET Board of Trustees are continuously disobeying the order of HSCP of dated 12 th June 2015 and notifications so for the issued in this regard till date did not contain the order of increase of pension as per GoP . The Borad of Trustees of the Trust are posing that they have implemented the order of HSCP of dated 12 th June 2015 in compliance of in view of HSCP two members H Judges order of dated 15-2-2018. They were absolutely wrong as order of two judges cannot take precedence over the orders of three judges of dated 12th June 2015 according to law. The order of dated 15-2-2028 of the two judges was inappropriate and invalid. This order was written by the H J Gulzar Ahmed in the contempt of court cases , filed by Sadiq Ali and Naseem Vohra ie 53/2015 and 54/2015 in the favour of PTET , that PTET will make payment of pension with incentive pay to the Petitioners beside VSS optees with in 15 days from today.Such order was passed by HJ Gulzar Sb when the council of PTET Shahid Anwar Bajwa intimated him that PTET will make pensions to the petitioners beside VSS .As matter of facts such unlawful order should not to be given by the HJ Gulzar Sb when he had already written in their original order that PTET is bound to pay GoP announced pension to all such retired employees of ptcl ( here he did not mention except VSS optees ) and then he also dismissed the review petition of PTET against it on 17th May 2017 duly without any modification . And there is no any any precedence in law that HSCP should here second review petition. According the rules of Supreme Court only one review petition
is entertained . So he ( HJ Gulzar Sb ) should had not pass such type
of order on dated 15-2-2018 . Since the order of HSCP dated
25-2-2018 is ultra- varies, defective hence it can not be implemented as ordered. Where PTET should fallow the spirit of the order of dated 12th June 2015 . The Honourable Chirf Justice of Pakistan is requested to take souo- moto action against PTET Board of Trustees for their continues contemplating of HSCP order of dated 12th June 2015 . And it may be implemented as per later and sprit upon on all PTCL Pensioners according to their principle and law laid down in Hameed Akhtar Niazi Vs Secretary Establishment Govt of Pakistan (1996 SCMR 1185) & in Anita Turab Ali Case namely Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2013 S.C. 195) etc. Regarding the remarks that T& T employees lost the status as Civil Servants In PTCL, by quoting the reference of HSCP verdicts in their dismissal case of review petition on 19 -2-2016 , as reported in 2016 SCMR 1362 that those T & T employees lost status of Civil Servant . The correct position is this the court has clarified that employees of T&T by provisions given in PTC Act 1991 and PT [ Re -organisation ] Act 1996 became the employees of Corporation In first instance and then the Company , they did not remain Civil Servants any more but they will be governed by statutory rules of Govt of Pakistan as provided in Civil Servant Acts 1973. As the terms and conditions of their service provided by Sections 3 to Section 22 of Civil Servant Act 1973 protected by Section 9(2) of the PTC Act 1991 and Sections 35(2) , 36(a) and (b) of the Act of 1996 are essentially Statutory. Violation of any of them would thus be amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court .
This clearly indicates that although the T& T employees working in PTCL will be called PTCL employees but they will be governed by statutory rules provided in Civil Servant Act 1973 , as being Civil Servant in T& T department , they were governed .
Regards
Muhammad Tariq Azhar
Retired General Manager ( OPS) PTCL
Dated : 02-09-2019
--
Comments