Article-135[ Part -2 regarding draft of Writ Petition]
Article-135 [ Part-2]
راجہ ریاض کے حق میں ، سپریم کوڑٹ کے 6 جولائی 2015 کو آنے والے فیصلے ثمرات ، جو پی ٹی سی ایل اور پی ٹی ای ٹی والے تمام پی اٹی دی ایل ملازمین اور پنشنرس نان پٹیشنرس کو دیتے نظر نہیں آتے ھیں ۔ انکے خلاف ھائی کوڑٹوں میں آئینی پٹیشنیں دائیر کرنی پڑیں گی - اسکے لئیے ڈیپاڑٹمنٹل اپیل اور رٹ پٹیشن کرنے نمونے کے ڈرافٹس کے مرتب کئیے گئیے ھیں
عزیز پی ٹی سی ایل ساتھیو
اسلام علیکم
اس سے پہلے اسی آڑٹیکل کے پاڑٹ ون میں ، میں نے ڈیپارٹمنٹلُ اپیل کا ڈرافٹ پیسٹ کیا تھا اور بتایا تھا کے یہ ضروری ھے جو پی ٹی سی ایل ملازمین اور پنشنرس ، راجہ ریاض کے حق میں آئیے ھوئیے فیصلے کا فائدہ انکو بھی پہچانے کے لئیے ، گورمنٹ اور پی ٹی سی ایل اور پی ٹی کے خلاف آئینی پٹیشنیں دائیر کرنا چاھتے ھیں اس سے سے پہلے یہ ڈیپاڑٹمنٹل اپیلیں کرنا ضروری ھیں ۔ اور اب اس پآڑٹ 2 میں ان آئینی رٹ پٹیشن کے ڈرافٹ کا سیمپل نیچے پیسٹ کررھا ھوں ۔ جو وکیل آپ لوگ انگیج کریں اسکو یہ ڈرافٹ دکھادیں وکیل صاحب یہ پڑھ کر خود اچھی طرح آگاہ ھوجائیں کے اور جو میں عدالتی ریفرنسس کوڈ کئیے ھیں انھی کو یا اور دوسرے عدالتی ریفرنسس ، جو وہ اگر جانتے ھوں گے ، عدالت میں دائیر کرنے کے لئیے آپ لوگوں کی طرف سے آئینی رٹ پٹیشن تیار کرلیں گے ۔ میں نے اس ڈرافٹ میں ھرطرح سے کوشش کی ھے کے کیس بیحد مضبوط ھو ۔
جیسا کے آپ کو پچھلے اس آڑٹیکل کے پاڑٹ ون میں بتا چکا ھوں گروپ وائیس ھی کیسس داخل کئیے جائیں مطلب یہ کے وہ لوگ جو ابھی پی ٹی سی ایل کے زیر ملازمت ھیں انکا الگ گروپ ھونا چاھئیے اور جو ریٹائڑڈ ھوچکے ھیں انکا الگ گروپ ھو نا چاھئیے ۔ اور ان میں بیواؤں کو بھی شامل کر لینا چاھئیے جو اپنے مرحوم شوھروں کے گورمنٹ والی تنخواھوں کے واجبات کے لئیے کلیم کریں گی بشرطیہ کے انکے مرحوم شوھر یکم جولائی 2005 یا اسکے بعد بھی پی ٹی سی ایل کا حصہ رھے ھوں ۔
جو یہ رٹ پٹیشن کا ڈرافٹ تیار کیاگیا ھے وہ ایسے پی ٹی سی ایل کے ان ریٹائیڑڈ ملازمین کی مناسبت سے جو حکومت کے موجودہ گورمنٹ کے 2017 کے ریوائیزڈ اسکیل جو یکم جولائی 2017 عمل پزیر ھیں ، اسکے بعد ھی ریٹائیڑڈ ھوئیے ھوں ۔ موجودہ پی ٹی سی ایل میں کام کرنے والے صرف اب تک کے گورمنٹ کے ریوائزڈ اسکیلوں کے مطابق اپنی اپنی تنخواھوں کے واجبات کا کلیم کریں گے اور جو ریٹائیڑڈ ھو چکے ھیں وہ اپنی ریٹائیرمنٹ کی تاریخ تک گورمنٹ کے ریوائیزڈ پے اسکیلز اور دیگر الاؤنسس جنکو گورمنٹ نے نوٹیفائیڈ کیا ھوئیے ھوں ھو اسکا ھی کلیم کریں گے اور پنشن اسکے ساتھ میڈیکل الاؤنسس اور دیگر الاؤنسس کا بھی جیسا کے اس رٹ پٹیشن کے ڈرافٹ میں Prayers میں واضح کردیا گیا ھے
سب سے اھم بات ان کیسسز کے لئیے آپ لوگوں کو بہترین ایماندار اور نہ بکنے والے وکیلوں کا انتخاب کرنا پڑے گا جو حقیقی طور آپ لوگوں کے مقدمات کی پیروی کرسکیں اور آپکو آسانی کے ساتھ ریلیف دلا سکیں ۔ وہ اندرون خانہ دوسری پاڑٹی سے نہ ملے ھوں جیسا کے ابتک ھوتا آیا ھے ۔ یاد رکھیں یہ آپ کے کیسسز بیحد مضبوط ھیں اور کوئی وجہ نھیں کے اعلی عدلیہ آپ لوگوں کے حق میں فیصلہ نہ دے ۔ یہ اب آپکے وکیل پر ھی منحصر ھے کے وہ کسطرح اسکا دفاع کرتا ھے یا کسی مصلحت کے خاطر چپ ساتھ لیتا ھے ، تاکے تاخیر پے تاخیر ھوتی رھے اور مسعلہ حل نہ ھو ۔
اس سلسلے میں کراچی اور سندھ کے دوسرے اضلاع میں رھنے والے پی ٹی سی ایل ملازمین اور پنشنرس کو مشورہ دوں گا کے اگر وہ چاھیں تو اس سلسلے حیدرآباد میں رھنے والےمیرے دوست وکیل ایڈوکیٹ شیخ حاذق علی سے رابطہ کریں انکو میں نے اس کیسس کے بارے کافی گروم کردیا ھے اور یہ رٹ پٹیشن کا ڈرافٹ بھی انکے ھی ایما پر انکو بھجوارھا ھوں وہ اسکے مطابق ھی ھر ایک کی رٹ پٹیشن تیار کریں گے وہ ایک تو اسکی مناسب کم فیس لیں گے ھر ایک پٹیشنر سے اور میری گائیڈنس سے ان کیسسز کی پیروی کریں گے ۔ ایڈوکیٹ شیخ حاذق علی پی ٹی سی ایل کے ریٹائیڑڈ ریوینیو آفیسر ھیں اور میرے انڈر بھی کام کرتے رھے ھیں جب میں جی ایم فون حیدرآباد تھا ۔مگر وہ لیگل کیسسز اور پی ٹی سی ایل کے خلاف ھونے مقدمات ، پی ٹی سی ایل ھیڈ کوارٹر کے لیگل ونگ کی طرف سے دئیے گئیے احکامات کے مطابق کام کرتے تھے انھوں نے مجھے اس بات کا یقین دلایا ھے کے جیسا میں انکو گائیڈ کروں گا وہ ویسا ھی کریں گے اور کیسز اپنے پینل کے دوسرے وکیل سے کرائیں گے جو آئینی اور سروس کیسسز کے بہت ماھر ھیں کیونکے وہ خود تو ھائیکوڑٹ کے وکیل تو نھیں کیونکے انھیں یہ قانونی پریکٹس کرتے ھوئیے صرف پانچ سال ھی ھوئیے ھیں ۔ انکا سیل نمبر 2742413-0333 ھے اور انکا آفس فرسٹ فلور منظور چیمبرس گاڑی کھاتہ حیدرآباد میں ھے ۔
اور آخری بات یہ کیسسز وھی لوگ کریں جن کے کوئی بھی ایسے ھی مقدمات ھائی کوڑٹوں میں نھیں چل رھے ھوں یا پینڈنگ ھوں ۔ یعنی جو لوگ گورمنٹ پنشن انکریز کی بابت مقدمہ کرچکے ھیں وہ اور وہ لوگ جن کو اسی طرح کے مقدمات کا فیصلہ انکے حق میں آگیا ھے مگر پی ٹی سی ایل اور پی ٹی ای ٹی نے انکے خلاف انٹرا کوڑٹ اپیلیں کر رکھی ھیں اور وہ زیر سماعت ھیں ۔ وہ ابھی یہ کیس نہ کریں ۔ جیسے کے میرا کیس 4588/2018 جسکا فیصلہ میرے اور میرے ساتھ ۱۹ ساتھیوں کے حق میں ، ۳ مارچ ۲۰۲۰ کو اسلام آباد ھائی کوڑٹ کے سنگل بینچ نے دیا مگر انھوں نے اسکے خلاف انٹرا کوڑٹ اپیلیں کر رکھیں ھیں ھو زیر سماعت ھیں ۔ جب یہ فیصلہ فائنل ھو جائیگا تو میں اور میرے ساتھی بھی پھر گورمنٹ والی تنخواہ اور پنشن ، جو گورمنٹ کے ریوائیزڈ اسکیلز جو بھی ھماری ملازمت کے دوران ھو ، اسکے مطابق ریٹائیرمنٹ پر ملنے والی پنشن کا کیلکولیشن کرکے ادا کرنے کا کلیم کریں گے ۔ انشاللہ۔ اس رٹ پٹیشن میں زکر کہیے گئیے کچھ ڈکومنٹس منٹس میں نے نیچے اٹیچ کردئیے ھیں اور انکے بھی ڈیکومنٹس جو ریوازڈ گورمنٹ پے اسکیلز کے مطابق ھیں ۔ 2008 میں گورمنٹ پے سکیل تو ریوائیز نھیں ھوئیے تھے بس ان 2008 میں یکم جولائی سے بنیادی تنخواہ جو گورمنٹ ریوائزڈ اسکیل 2007 کے مطابق تھیں ، ان میں 20% اضافہ کیا گیا تھا۔ ی سب میں نے prayers میں مانگ لیا ھے
کوئی بات سمجھ میں نہ آئیے تو کمنٹس کے زریعے مجھ سے معلوم کرسکتے ھیں ۔ شکریہ
واسلام
طارق
۲۱ جنوری ۲۰۲۱
Note :-This sample draft is for filling Writ Petition by those PTCL employees , PTCL retired employees & their widows who are entitled to have pays, pension , and medical allowance with pension being given to the government employees & retired employees and widows etc except those were expired/retired prior to 1st July 2005 .Those who dismissed , terminated , resigned or had left PTCL by any reason are only entitled for GoP pay subject to the conditions they were remain part of PTCL on or after 1st July 2005.
[DRAFT FOR WRIT PETITION]
IN THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT ________
WRIT PETITION NO. ……. /…...
____________________ S or D/O _______________
Adult, Muslim/ _____________ (by caste,)
Working/Ex_____________________PTCL ____________
Resident of _____________________________
_________________________..…………………………PETITIONER
Versus
1. Federation of Pakistan
Through Secretary Information & Technology
Ministry of Information & Technology
4th Floor Evacuee Trust Building
Islamabad.
2. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd,
Through its President/CEO
Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd.
PTCL HQs.G-8/4
Islamabad.
3. Pakistan Telecom Employees Trust (PTET)
Through its Managing Director PTET
Tele-House Mouve Area
G-10/4 Kashmir Highway Mr Hamid Farooq
Islamabad
4. The President & CEO PTCL
Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd.
PTCL HQs.G-8/4
Islamabad.
5. Syed Mazhar Hussain
Senior Executive Vice President (HRA)
Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd.
PTCL HQs. G-8/4
Islamabad
6. Mr Hamid Farooq
Managing Director PTET
Pakistan Telecom Employees Trust (PTET)
Tele-House Mouve Area
G-10/4 Kashmir Highway Mr Hamid Farooq
Islamabad. . . . . . . . . . … . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 READ WITH ARTICLES 4, 8, 9, 13, 14, 25, 27 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC
REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN 1973 IN CONNECTION TO UN-CONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN ( OTHERWISE EQUALLY PLACED /POSITIONED) PETITIONER AND NON PETITIONER PTCL EMPLOYEES AND PENSIONERS
Respectfully Sheweth,
It is stated respectfully that having being aggrieved by the victimisation, discrimination and disregard policy of PTCL & PTET against the transferred employees in PTCL , having statutory rules provision of Government of Pakistan , the above named Petitioner is filling this writ petition to this Honourable High Court ________ for obtaining the same relief as provided to Muhammad Riaz Rtd Assistant Director (B-17) , on the direction of HSCP of dated 6th July 2015 as reported in 2015 SCMR 1783 , on following facts and grounds.
A. FACTS
1. That the Petitioner joined on __________in BPS____Service (____________) of erstwhile Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department (T&T) , an attached department with sub-ordinate offices of Ministry of Communication Government of Pakistan at that time.
2. The Petitioner is now still part of PTCL and working as _________in BPS_______/ is not a part of PTCL now as he/she has been retired / resigned/removed /from service wef ___________from the post of________BPS_________
3. That the Petitioner’s appointment in the then T &T Department Government of Pakistan was according terms and conditions envisaged in Civil Servants Act 1973 as per under sub-rule (2) of Rule (3) of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973. His terms and conditions of service at the time of initial appointment in the service of Pakistan were confirmed to be governed by the provisions of the Civil Servants Acts, 1973, and such other terms and conditions as are in force or may be prescribed by the Government from time to time. You shall appreciate his status and position since his initial appointment to be a Civil Servant in the service of Pakistan having constitutionally protection under Art. 240 of the Constitution 1973.
4. That at in the year 1991, vide PakistanTelecommunication Corporation Act, 1991, the erstwhile Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department, was incorporated as Corporation and the employees of Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department, by virtue of section 9 of the said Act, stood transferred and became the employees of the said Corporation, on the same terms and conditions to which they were entitled immediately before such transfer .By the sub-section (2) of the said Section 9, the terms and conditions of such departmental employees ( defined in sub-section e of Section 2 of PTC Act 1991), as is referred to in Section (1) of the said Section 9, could not to be varied by the Corporation to their disadvantage. That on establishment of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC), as stated above in pursuance of section 9 of the Act No. XVIII of 1991 which reads “All departmental employees shall, on the establishment of the corporation, stand transferred to and become employees of the corporation, on the same terms and conditions to which they were entitled immediately before such transfer”. accordingly Petitioner stood transferred to the Corporation as established under the Act of 1991 . Hence all statutory rules of Federal Government the Terms and Conditions of the Services for Civil Servants as mentioned Civil Servants Act 1973 (Section-3 to Section-22) which were being applicable for all such transferred employees in T&T Department, prior to their induction in PTC were also applicable upon them in PTC. In PTC all employees were governed by such statutory rules.
5. On the establishment of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) , on 1-1-1996 under Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act,1996, the service of the Petitioner stood transferred from PTC to PTCL & he /she became the employee of PTCL on 1-1-1996 , by virtue Section 36 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, the terms and conditions of service of employees of the Corporation,has been safe guarded. Such employees, pursuant to subsection (2) of Section-35, were transferred to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited. The Proviso Subsection (1) of Section 36 of the said Act of 1996 provides that that the Federal Government shall guarantee the existing terms and conditions of service and rights, including the pensionary benefits of “Transferred Employees”. It may not be out of place to mention here that all these employees who were transferred pursuant to this Act of 1996 to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company were called as “Transferred Employees” Subsection (2) provided that the terms and conditions of service of any “Transferred Employee” shall not be altered adversely by the Company except in accordance with the laws of Pakistan or with the consent of the “Transferred Employees” and the award of appropriate compensation.
6. That in the historical judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.A 239 to 241 of 2011 namely Masood Bhattie & etc and others Vs Federation of Pakistan & etc (which is now reported in 2012 SCMR 152 ) announced on 7th October 2011,for guidance and establishing the “Rule of Law” and “Justice “ in PTCL, clearly defined the status of transferred employees in PTCL as of Civil Servants as they have statuary status because whatever rules were in place governing the employment in the T&T Department, were made applicable to and binding on the Corporation and then in PTCL, which has been attained attained finally after the the dismissal of CRP of PTCL on 19-02-2016 reported in 2016 SCMR 1362 . However HSCP clarified since such transferred employees in the Company on 1st Jan 1996 , by virtue of the aforesaid provisions became employees of the Corporation in the first instance and then the Company, they did not remain Civil Servants any more. But the terms and conditions of their service provided by Sections 3 to 22 of the Civil Servants Act and protected by Section 9(2) of the Act of 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.
7. The Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust (PTET) was also established by the Governament as per Section 44 of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act,1996 wef Ist January 1996 , along with the establishment Company ie PTCL (as per Section 34 of the Act 1996 ) and transferring of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Employees Pension Fund as created through Trust Deed dated the 2nd April 1994 along with the liabilities were transferred to the Trust under Section 45 same Act of 1996.The main purpose the Fedral Govt of establishing this Trust , for providing Pension Fund of PTC to it , for disbursing of Pension in accordance to the Federal Government Pension Rules and Procedure to retired employees of T&T Departement ant to those who had been retired after their transfer from T&T to Corporation (PTC) and Company (PTCL) and to those who would be retired from PTCL , time to time.
8. All such transferred employees in PTCL were being ejoyed the status of Civil Servants since from 1st January 1996 as they were being governed by such rules undeniably, which were statutory, having been framed under rule-making powers granted to the Federal Government, inter alia, under the Civil Servants Act 1973.Their Govt Pay Scales of 1994 were revised with effect from 1-12-2001 as per Government Civil Servants new pay scales 2001, But such GoP revision of new Pay Scales were discontinued since from 1st July 2005 , when Govt announced new pay scales 2005 wef 1-7- 2005 for Civil Servant .After after that PTCL never revised the Pay Scales accordingly as per new pay of such employees accordingly, as per announcements of Federal Government for their Civil Servants time to time .After 2001 to till date , the Govt has revised Govt Pay Scales of its Civil Servant seven (6) times ie in year 2005, 2007,2011, 2015 ,2016 & 2017 which have not been revised by PTCL for such PTCL employees having the status of Civil Servant of Govt of Pakistan. Pesently all such PTCL employees are drawing their monthly pays as per Govt Scale 2001 applicable from 1-12-2001. Although the PTCL have increased the some basic Pays in it but not at the same level on which the Federal Governament has increased uptill now for its employees . Presntly such transferred Govt employees in PTCL, having the same stauory rules provision as of Civil servants , are drawing to 130 to 157% less pays then government employees
9. The Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust (PTET) was disbursing the pension to the such retired employees called PTCL pensioners, in accordance Fedral Government Pension rules and procedure since from 1-1-1996. Whenever any pension increases for the retired civl servents, per announcement the federal government, the board of trustees of PTET always had to approve the same accordingly .But since from 1-7-2010, the PTET has stopped of giving such increments in the monthly pensions of such PTCL retired pensioners as being announced by the government for their retired civil servants . Similarly the PTET has not given medical allowance wef 1-7-2010 and increase medical allowance wef 1-7-2015 to such PTCL pensioners,as announced by the federal government for their civil pensioners etc .
10. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in her Judgement in Muhammad Riaz case reported in 2015 SCMR 1783 ordered PTCL & PTET for payment pay,leave encashment & pension etc to Mr Muhammad Riaz as since he was the transferred employee from PTC to PTCL on 1-1-1996 and according to HSC verdicts in Masood Bhattie, he was being governed statutory rules of GoP in PTCL during service there. Now he has been paid all dues, as per GoP finally on 3-12-2020 [ Copy of PTET letter dated 3-12-2020 having his PPO RF # 26522 issued to Senior Postmaster GPO Islamabad for payment of pension Rs 101550 + 9660 Med All = 111210/- PM with effect 1-11-2020 , annexed at _______for ready reference]. Mr Muhammad Riaz was retired from the PTCL service wef 1-4-2015 from the post of Asst Director ( B-17 ) at the age of 60 years
11. The Petitioner requested to the Respondents 1 to 3 through departmental appeal of dated ___________ ( Copy attached__________) to grant the same pay and pension to him / her within 15 days accordingly as announcement of GoP time to to time as granted to Mr Muhammad Riaz , in accordance principle of law laid down by the HSCP in Hameed Akhter Niazi case ie 1996 SCMR 1185 .This departmental appeal was sent to them through Registered post # __________of dated__________/ / through TCS invoice # _________of dated_________________ ( Copies of all attached_________). So for seeking the the same relief and entitled to the same on the principle of law laid down HSCP in the case of Hammed Akhter Niazi Vs Secretary Establishment Division (1996 SCMR 1185), this petition has been filled on the following grounds
B. GROUNDS
1. Since the Petitioner is also the PTCL employee of the same category and Status and having the same issue as that of Muhammad Riaz ,so the PTCL & PTET are legally bound to to pay & pension the same to the Petitioner, as principal and law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in case that of Hameed Akhtar Niazi (1996 SCMR 1185) case that “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. This rule and principle laid down by the HSCP in the case Hameed Akhtar Niazi 1996 SCMR 1185, has been further clarified by three member judges of HSCP in case of Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2013 S.C. 195) [commenly known as Anita Turab Ali case(PLD 2013 S.C. 195)] 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 tit.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.”
2. A three-member bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had , on December 21, 2017 , dismissed the petition of the Chairman WAPDA and upheld the decision of FST in favor of those WAPDA employees who sought similar relief from FST given by in 2008 for those employees of WAPDA who litigated the case .This is reported ie in Chairman WAPDA Vs Abdul Ghaffar and others ie in 2018 SCMR 380 for not giving the same relief to the respondents as given to other , who litigated the case. In this judgment , the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan clearly stated , by referring Judgement by refreing the case of Hameed Akhter Niazi case reported in 1996 SCMR 1185 , and stated that ,” that the respondents are seeking the same relief and are entitled to the same on the principal of law laid down by this Court in case of Hameed Akhter Niazi Vs Secretary Establishment [ 1996 SCMR 780] and Abdul Hameed Nasir vs National bank of Pakistan [ 2003 SCMR 1030]۔ And also clarified that those persons who litigated and those who did not, are to be treated alike, if simlerly placed and positioned.”
3. Similarly the HSCP has held in the cases,Tara Chand (PLJ 2005 SC 826) and Rashid Iqbal Khan (CPLA 525 of 2007 decided on 19th July 2007 ) that those persons who litigated , and those who did not , are to be treated alike , if similarly placed and positioned . In the SCMR-1 2009 ,it has been held that if Service Tribunal or Supreme Court decides on the point of law relating to the terms and conditions of a civil servant , and there were other civil servant, who may have not taken any legal proceedings, in such case, the dictates of justice and rules of good governance demands that the benefit of said decision be extended to other civil servants also who may not be the parties to that litigation , instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or other legal forums.
4. The Supreme Court repeated rulings/ direction that the benefits of said decision ( that by Service Tribunal or Supreme Court) be extended to other civil servants also who may not be parties to that litigation, instead of compelling them to approach any other legal forum.Else any discrimination between litigating and non- litigating to PTCL employees/pensioners equally placed in the matter of any benefit would be tantamount unconstitutional discrimination.
5. On the basis of this principal of law that that those persons who litigated , and those who did not , are treated alike. If similarly placed and positioned ,the IHC single bench decided the case in favour of PTCL employees Noor Wali & three others in their Writ Petition # 1875/2016 on 18th Jan 2017 , with the direction to the respondents to extend those benefits to the Petitioners, to which equally placed persons declared entitle to the HSCP , as per the laid down dictums, referred in in this judgement, in particular “ Muhammad Riaz Vs Federation of Pakistan which has already attained finally .The PTCL Intra court appeal # 34/ 2017 against it also had been dismissed on 17th December 2018 ,of which appeal of PTCL is still pending in HSCP since last two years.
C. PRAYERS
Based on the forgoing above facts and grounds ,it is very respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may graciously be please to:-
1. Declare that the the act of respondent 2&3 , whereby not extending the benefits of revision in the Basic Pay Scales ( as approved and notified by the Federal Government in the years 2005, 2007, 2011, 2015, 2016 & 2017) to the Petitioner and denying to grant @20% in pay increases wef 1st July 2008 on the existing Government of basic Pay Scale of 2007 at that time ,granted by the Federal Government through Office Memorandum No . F.1(1)Imp/2008 dated 30th June 2008 , is unconstitutional, discriminatory, unlawful based on sheer malafide.
2. Direct the respondent No 2 to grant adhoc relief allowance @ 20% of basic pay to the Petitioner , granted by Federal Government vide Office Memorandum No . F.1(3)Imp/2012 dated 02-07-2012.
3. Direct the respondent to calculate the net pension and commuted amount of pension on the basis last pay to be drawn in accordance to revised pay scale in 2007 granted by Federal Government vide Office Memorandum No . F.1(3)Imp/2017-500 dated 03-07-2017 wef 1st July 2017 as the Petitioner was retired after it ie on ____________
4. Direct the respondent No 2 PTCL to grant 12 months leave encashment instead of six month to the Petitioner on his/ her retirement superannuation age of 60 years on ___________as being given to the Federal Government Employees wef 1-7-2012 on their retirement who do not avail LPR.
5. Direct the respondent No 2 & 3 PTCL & PTET to revise , as consequence of above declaration/ directions, all Service benefits including pensionary benefits to the Petitioner.
6. Grant any other relief this Honourable Court deems fit and just in the circumstances of the case.
7. Grant costs of the case.
Signed____________
Petitioner
Signed _____________
Advocate
Comments