Article-137 Part -2 [ Guide lines Regarding filing Writ Petitions by VSS Non Pensioners ]

<[Attention Attention VSS Non Pensioners] Article-137 Part -2 [ Guide lines Regarding filing Writ Petitions by VSS Non Pensioners ] عنوان : گائیڈ لائینز عزیز پی ٹی سی ایل ساتھیو اسلام وعلیکم اس سے قبل میں نے وی ایس ایس نان پنشنروں کے لئیے اپنے آڑٹیکل 137 کے پاڑٹ 1 میں تفصیل سے بتایا ھے کے انکے ساتھ کسطرح ظلم اور زیادتی کی گئی جو انکو انکی حقیقی پنشن سے غیر قانونی طور پر محروم کردیا گیا ۔ اب انسے یہ حق لینا بیحد ضروری ھے ۔ 3 دسمبر 2020 راجہ ریاض کو اس گورمنٹ والی تنخواہ اور پنشن کی ادئیگیاں کردی گئیں جسکا حکم سپریم کوڑٹ نے اسکی دائیر کردہ اپیل پر 6 جولائی 2015 کو دیا تھا ۔ سپریم کوڑٹ نے اپنے بنائیے ھوئیے اصول اور قانون کے مطابق جو اسنے حمید اختر نیازی کیس میں جو 1996SCMR1185 میں رپوڑٹ ھے ، جس میں یہ کہا گیا کے کسی سرکاری ملازم حق میں آیا فیصلہ ، جسنے مقدمہ کیا ھو ، اسکا فائیدہ اور تمام ایسے ھی سرکاری ملازمین کو بھی دیا جائیگا جو نہ تو اس مقدمہ کے پاڑٹی ھوں یا انھوں نے کوئی مقدمہ نہ کیا ھو ، بجائیے انسے کہا جائیے کے وہ بھی مقدمہ کریں یا پراپر فورم کو اپروچ کریں ۔ تو اسطرح وہ تمام ملازمین جو ٹی اینڈ ٹی یا پی ٹی سی میں بھرتی ھوئیے اور یکم جنوری 1996 پی ٹی سی ایل کے ملازم بن گئیے لیکن انپر پی ٹی سی ایل میں سرکاری قوانین کا ھی اطلاق ھورھا تھا جسطرح راجہ ریاض پر ھورھا تھا کیونکے وہ بھی تو ٹی اینڈ ٹی میں بھرتی ھو ا تھا اور وہ بھی یکم جنوری 1996 کو ھی پی ٹی سی ایل کا ملازم بنا تھا اور اسپر بھی وہی گورمنٹ کے سرکاری قوانین لاگو تھے تو جو فائیدہ سپریم کوڑٹ نے اسکو اسکے مقدمہ کرنے کے باعث دیا اسکا فائیدہ تو آپسبکو بھی سپریم کوڑٹ کے اسی اصول اور قانون کے مطابق ھی ملنا چاھئیے تھا بیشک آپ راجہ ریاض کے ساتھ پاڑٹی نہ تھے اور نہ ھی آپ نے مقدمہ کیا تھا ۔ لیکن پی ٹی ای ٹی اور پی ٹی سی ایل نے صرف راجہ ریاض کو ھی پیمنٹ کی جو پٹیشنر تھا اور نان پٹیشنروں کو نھیں کی جو اسکو سپریم کوڑٹ کے حمید اختر نیازی کیس میں دئیے احکامات کے تحت کرنی چاھئیے تھی ۔ میں نے اپنے آڑٹیکل 135 ، جسکے بھی دو پاڑٹ تھے تمام ایسے پی ٹی سی ایل پنشنروں اور ملازمین کو یہ مشورہ دیا تھا کے آپ لوگ ھائی کوڑٹوں میں سپریم کوڑٹ کے راجہ ریاض گورمنٹ تنخواہ اور پنشن دینے والے احکامات کو اپنے اوپر بھی عملدرآمد کرانے کے لئیے مقدمات کریں انکو بھی یہ ھی میں نے مشورہ دیا تھا کے پہلے وہ ڈیپاڑٹمنٹل اپیلیں کریں اور اگر وہ عدالت عظمی کے احکامات پر عمل نہیں کرتے تو ھائی کوڑٹوں میں آئینی پٹیشنیں داخل کریں اور اپنا حق لیں ۔ اسکے لئیے انکو میں نے ڈیپاڑٹمنٹل اپیل اور پھر ھائی کوڑٹوں دائر کرنے کا رٹ پٹیشن کا ڈرافٹ بناکر دیا تھا ۔ رٹ پٹیشن ڈرافٹ تیار کرنے کا مقصد یہ تھا کے وہ جو بھی وکیل کریں اسکو سمجھانے کی بجائیے یہ ڈرافٹ دکھادیں پھر وکیل صاحب ڈرافٹ پڑھکر ھر بات سے اچھی طرح آگاہ ھو جائیں گے اور اپنے مطابق رٹ پٹیشن تیار کرلیں گے ۔ میں چاھتا ھوں آپ سب لوگ بھی یہ ھی کریں ۔ میں نے نیچے [A] پر ڈیپاڑٹمنٹل اپیل کا ڈرافٹ اور [B] پر رٹ پٹیشن کے ڈرافٹ بنایا ۔ آپ سب ایسوں کو متحد ھوکر گروپ وائیز زیادہ سے زیادہ پٹیشنرز شامل کرکے وکلاء کرنے پڑیں گے ۔ اچھے اور ٹوپ کلاس وکلاء کرنا جو بیحد ایماندار اور نہ بکنے والے ھوں اور جنکی فیس ویلیو بھی زیادہ اور بہت ھی تجربہ کار ھوں ۔ یاد رکھیں آپ کا واسطہ ان خود سروں سے پڑا ھے جنکے پاس اچھے سے اچھے وکلاء ھیں اور پیسا بھی بہت ھے ۔ اب سوال پیدا ھورھا ھے کے کونسے وکلاء کئیے جائیں چھوٹا موٹا وکیل صرف اسلئیے نہیں کرنا چاھئیے کے وہ فیس تو کم لیتا ھے ایسا وکیل بلکل بھی قابل بھروسہ نہیں ھوتا وہ اندرون خانہ دوسری پاڑٹی سے مل جاتا ھے اور وھاں سے انکو بلیک میل کرکے فائیدہ اٹھاتا ھے ۔ اسوقت میری نظروں میں دو اچھے وکیل ھیں ۔ ایک اسلام آباد سے حافظ عرفات چوھدری ایڈوکیٹ [5675800-0333] او دوسرے وکیل لاھور سے ایڈوکیٹ عائیشہ حمید [0300-060698, 042-111-551-111]. جنھوں نے پنشن کے حق میں بہت کیسس جیتے ھیں اگرچہ انکی فیس دس لاکھ کے قریب ھیں ۔ اگر زیادہ سے زیادہ لوگ گروپ میں شامل ھوکر انکو وکیل کریں گے تو انکے ھر حصہ میں انکی فیس کم سے کم آئیگی ۔ آپ ھی کی طرح ایک نان پنشنرس عارف شمیم صاحب مقیم لاھور نے عائیشہ حمید کو وکیل کیا ھوا ھے اور کیس لاھور ھائی کوڑٹ میں پنشن ریسٹوریشن کر رکھا ھے ۔ لاھور میں رھنے والے ان سے رابطہ کرکے مزید معلومات کرسکتے ھیں ۔ انکا واٹس ایپس اور سیل نمبر 4656044-332-92+ ھے ، یہ میرے پاس ایک سال پہلے میرے گھر آئیے تھے انکو ھی میں نے عائیشہ حمد کو وکیل کرنے کا کہا تھا اور رٹ پٹیشن بھی بنا کردیں تھیں ۔ یہ جو آپ ڈیپاڑٹمنٹل اپیلیں بھیجیں اسکا پورا بھیجنے اور وصول کرنے کا ریکاڑڈ اپنے پاس ضرور رکھئیے گا کیونکے اسکو رٹ پٹیشن کے ساتھ لگایا جائیگا ۔ اور اگر کوئی بات سمجھ نھیں آتی تو کمنٹس میں لکھ کر مجھ سے رابط کریں ۔ جن ساتھیوں کو ان سبکی پی ڈی ایف کاپیا ں چاھئیں ھوں تو وہ اپنا نام واٹس ایپس نمبر کمنٹس پر لکھ کر بھیجدیں ۔ شکریہ واسلام محمد طارق اظہر ریٹائیڑڈ جنرل منیجر ( آپس) پی ٹی سی ایل راولپنڈی Dated 13th March 2021 [A] [Draft Sample for departmental appeal] Dated - 2021 To 1. Federation of Pakistan Through its Federal Secretary (IT& Telecom) Ministry of Information Technology and Telecom 4th Flour, Evacuee Trust Complex Agha Khan Road F-5/1 Islamabad 2. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. (PTCL) Through its President/CEO, PTCL HQs., G-8/4, Islamabad. 3. Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust (PTET) Through its Managing Director Tele-House Mauve Area, G-10/4 Islamabad. SUBJECT: DEPARTMENTAL TO EXTEND THE SAME DECISION OF HSCP VERDICTS OF DATED 6TH JULY 2015 IN MUHAMMAD RAIAZ VS FoP & ETC 2015 SCMR 1783 CASE, IN THE LIGHT OF JUDGEMENT OF HSCP IN HAMEED AKHTAR NIAZI CASE , REPORTED IN 1996 SCMR 1185. Dear Sir I___________________s/o , d/o appointed in erstwhile T&T Department Government of Pakistan / PTC and was retired through VSS -2008 without pension in spite of having Qualified Service of ______years as for the entitlement pension of a retired govt servant is ten years or more , in accordance to the Section 474-AA of Civil Service Regulation of Federal Govt .Now as per decision of HSCP Dt 6-7-2015 in favour of PTCL Retired Employee Muhammad Riaz reported in 2015 SCMR 1783 for the payment of Govt announced pay and pension and already paid to him , the PTCL & PTET are bound to pay the same to all such retired employees non petitioners , in the light of the principle & law laid down by HSCP in case of Hameed Akhtar Niazi vs. Secretary Establishment Federal Government & others , reported in 1996 SCMR 1185. It is earnestly requested that my due pension as per GoP be restored from the date of my retirement wef ________ and pay be fixed on point to point basis, on revision of Pay Scales introduced by Government of Pakistan in 2005, & 2007 and my net pension & commutation be calculated on the basis of last pay to be drawn according according to GoP revised pay scale of in 2007 and medical allowance with pension and other allowances, adhoc allowances paid by the government to its employees during this period,etc up till now or till my date of retirement and all arrears in this regard be paid to me within fifteen days from date of receipt this notice. If no such complete payment of Govt pay payment of pension after restoration within in due course of time , then I will be constrained to knock the door of court of law for my legitimate rights Yours sincerely, -sd- ( ____________________) Name: Retired _______ (B- ) PTCL CNIC # ___________________________ Employee #: _______________ Email: - _______________________ Phone #:- ____________________ Address: ________________________ [B]. [Draft of Writ Petition for VSS Non Pensioners ] [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, Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. PTCL HQs.G-8/4 Islamabad. 3. The President & CEO PTCL Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. PTCL HQs.G-8/4 Islamabad. 4. Pakistan Telecom Employees Trust (PTET) Through its Managing Director PTET Tele-House Mouve Area G-10/4 Kashmir Highway Mr Hamid Farooq 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 Respectfully Sheweth, Respectfully it is submitted that above named petitioner, having being greatly aggrieved by the policy of the PTCL & PTET to victimize, disgrace, discrimination, disregard and unlawful actions and for not extending the same benefits as given by the Respondents to Muhammad Riaz Rtd Assistant Director (B-17) , on the direction of HSCP of dated 6th July 2015 , which attained finally on 18th August 2015 reported in 2015 SCMR 1783 .For obtaining the same relief as given to Mr Muhammad Riaz , the Petitioner is filling this writ petition to this Honourable High Court ________ for the sake of justice and for compensating the damages caused to him for not providing due emoluments ie in pension pays, adhoc relief allowances and other miscellaneous allowances etc on the following facts and grounds. FACTS 1. That the Petitioner joined on __________in Class- ____Service (____________) of erstwhile the then Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department (T&T)/ Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation ( PTC) and was retired on _______ without pension through VSS package announced in November 2007 2. That at in the year 1991, vide Pakistan Telecommunication 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. 3. 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 became the employee of PTCL on 1-1-1996 by 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. 4. That in the historical judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.A 239 to 241 of 2011 namely Masood Bhattie and others Vs Federation of Pakistan (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 now confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan decision in Masood Bhattie case reported in 2012 SCMR 152, which has been attained attained finally after the the dismissal of PTCL review petitions vide HSCP short order of dated 19-02-2016 & its detail judgement of dated 16-03-2016 ,reported in 2016 SCMR 1362 5. 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 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. 6. 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 2001-2002. 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 (7) times ie in year 2005, 2007, 2008, 2011, 2015 2016 & 2017 which were never 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 effected 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 government 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 7. *In 2007, the new management of PTCL (Response No 2) first sent the Petitioner to pool of surplus staff , when he was working as______ in BPS______ in the office of _______ Such Surplus Staff pool was made by PTCL of who services were not needed to the Company . On _________2008, the Petitioner was forcibly and violently. retired under VSS Package 2008 without any pension ,in-spite of having QoS Ten years or more , contrary to Federal Government Pension Rules ie Section 474 -AA of Civil Service Regulations of Federal Government , that a retired government servant becomes entitled of Pension if his /her QoS is ten years or more .Where above named Petitioner had been retired without any pension, while he was legally entitled to a pension having QoS ten years mentioned in Govt Pension rule according to said rule Section 474 AA of CSR 8. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in her Judgement in Muhammad Riaz case reported in 2015 SCMR 178 for the grant of same pension , pays & leave encashment accordingly as per of Federal Government. Mr Muhammad Riaz Retired Director (B-17) who was the same category of employee in PTCL , who had being governed by statutory rules of the Federal Government in PTCL being transferred employee from PTC to PTCL on 1-1-1996 . He was retired from service on 1-4-2015. 9. There are two parts of Raja Riaz's judgment. First, pay and allowance as per Civil Servant Act, 1973, as rules framed thereunder (Section 3 to 22 of Act, 1973), encashmment of 365 days pay instead of 180 days in lieu of un-availed LPR, calculation of pensionery benefits under revised pay scales at par with Civil Servants.Second, enhancement of pension as being announced by the Government time to time. 10. Since the Petitioner is also the same category of employee in PTCL as of Muhammad Riaz in PTCL and Petitioner has the same issue is of Muhammad Riaz to so he/she submitted appeal to Respondents 3&4 with copy to Respondent-1 through his/her application of dated ___________through Registered post # __________of dated__________(Copies of each attached________)///through TCS invoice #s____________of dated_________________ ( Copies of all attached_________). As confirmed the same have been received by all such concerned on___________(Copies of acknowledgement attached_____________).But no any response is received from the respondents due to this fact , so the Petitioner is compelled to file this writ petition honorable Court to seek justice., on the following grounds GROUNDS 1. The PTCL had no any power to alter the Terms and Conditions of such transferred employees for their disadvantages. The pay & pension are also the part of terms and conditions of the service mentioned in the Section-3 to Section-22 in Civil Servant Act 1973. The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan it has mentioned clearly in the case PTET Vs Masood Bhattie case, repotrd in 2016 SCMR 1362 that the violation of any of them would be thus be amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the high courts.Thus not granting of pays, pensions , medical allowances and other allowances in accordance Federal Government’s employees and other allowances , are serious violation HSCP directives by of the respondents 2. The retirement of the Petitioner without pension through VSS Package 2008 is illegal, as it was not mentioned in the terms and conditions that those who have QoS less then 20 years will not be entitled for pension ( Copy of the same annexed at _______).Where in VSS package 1997-1998 , such conditions were clearly elaborated. package of 1997-1998 .The pension was not only granted to those VSS 1997-1998 optees who had ten years QoS but also was also granted to those to those also who had QoS 9.5 years according to Article 423 of Civil Service Regulations as mentioned in GoP Revised Pension Rules .Hence For not granting pension to such eligible Vss 2008 optees by PTCL, is clearly violation Article-27 of Constitution of discrimination . 3. The benefits of long performed government service had created valuable rights in his (Petitioner) favour being, a ‘Transferred Employee” had attained finality. Such valuable rights could not be undone/withdrawn or superseded/rescinded to the detriment of those rights because of sale of minority share with management control. It is devoid of any moral or legal sanctions behind it and does not fulfil the requirement of natural justice. 4. 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 had 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].Since the Petitioner is also the PTCL employee of the same category and Status , thus 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 the .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.” 4. 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 it eight years ago 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.” 5. Also with this HSCP reference ie Hameed Akhtar Niazi (1996 SCMR 1185) , the superior courts decided the cases in favour of those petitioners who did not litigate the case, as reported in Tara Chand case “PLJ 2005 SC 826 “and in Rashid Iqbal case “CPLA 525 of 2007” decided on 19th July 2009 etc. PRAYERS The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to 1. direct the the respondent 2&4 to restore the legitimate govt announced pension of government from the date of his retirement and all of arrears till date be paid . 2. direct respondents 2 to pay arrears of his legitimate pays according to the revised Scale of Govt in the year 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 relief allowances, misc allowances if any announced by govt etc 3. *direct respondent 2&4 to fix the pension of the petitioner according to new GoP scales on the retirement wef _____ an to till date the arrears be paid. 4. to grant such order/further relief /compensation or pass such other orders as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case and; 5. award costs of the petition to the petitioner. Signature________________ Petitioner Signature________________ Advocate____________ div dir="auto">