Article-170[ Regarding Article -137 Part -1 in English]

Article -137 Part-1 in English نوٹ: ۱۲ مارچ ۲۰۲۱ کو میں نے وی ایس ایس -۲۰۰۸ لیکر ریٹائیڑڈ ھونے والے نان پنشنرز پی ٹی سی ایل ملازمین کے لئیے ایک آڑٹیکل نمبر 137 جسکے دو پاڑٹ تھے، ۔ پاڑٹ ۱ ، تحریر کیا تھا اور اسکو اپنے فیس بک اور بلگ سائیٹ پر بھی اپلوڈ کیا تھا۔ اس میں نے تفصیل سے بتایا تھا کے انکے ساتھ کیا سخت زیادتی ھوئی ۔ اور پی ٹی ای ٹی اور پی ٹی سی ایل کسطرح گورمنٹ کے پنشن قوانین کی دھجئیاں بکھیرتے ھوئیے ، دس سال یا اس سے زیادہ کولیفائیڈ سروس ھونے کے باوجود مگر بیس سال سے کم ھونے کی وجہ سے کم ازکم بیس ھزار ایسے وی ایس ایس ۲۰۰۸ آپٹیز پی ٹی سی ایل ملازمین کو بغیر پنشن دئیے گئیے ریٹائیڑڈ کردیا گیا ۔ انھوں نے اپنے تئیں ، جسکے وہ بلکل بھی مجاز نھیں تھے ، پنشن کے حقدار ھونے کی گورمنٹ کی مقرر کردہ مدت دس سال کولیفائیڈ سروس کو بیس سال کی کوالئفائڈ سروس کر دی تھی یہ انھوں نے ایسے وی ایس ایس 2008 لینے والوں کے ساتھ بہت ھی بڑا ظلم کیا تھا جسکو کوئی بھی انسے پوچھنے والا نھیں - جبکے 1998-1997 کا وی ایس ایس لینے والے سبھی کو ، جنکی کوالیفائیڈ سروس دس سال یا اس سے زیادہ تھی سبھی کو پنشن بھی دی گئی تھی گورمنٹ سروس ریگولیشن کے قانون سیکشن 474AA کے تحت ۔ بلکے قوانین کے مطابق نو سال یا اس سے زیادہ ، مگر دس سال سے کم کولیفائیڈ سروس رکھنے والوں کو بھی ، مجاز اتھاڑٹی کی اسپیشل منظوری سے قانون کے مطابق پنشن دی گئی تھیں۔ میں انھی سب کو چیزوں اپنے اس آڑٹیکل میں تفصیل کے ساتھ ھائی لائیٹ کئیا تھا ۔ جبکے اس کے پاڑٹ ۲ میں عدالت میں اپیل کرنے کے لئیے رٹ پٹیشن کا ڈرافٹ بھی دیا تھا۔ اور اس اپیل جو دائیر کرنے سے پھلے ، پی ٹی ای ٹی کو قانون کے مطابق پنشن دینے کے کئیے نوٹس دینے کا ڈرافٹ بناکر بھی دیا تھا ۔[یہ آڑٹیکل 37 پاڑٹ 1 اور پاڑٹ 2 میرے بلاگ سائیٹ پر اب بھی موجود ھیں جنکے لنک میں نے نیچے پیسٹ کردئیے ھیں۔ آپ چاھیں تو پڑھ سکتے ھیں ]. مجھے نھیں معلوم اس پر کتنے لوگوں نے عمل کیا۔کچھ دن ھوئیے مجھ سے چند ایسے وی ایس نان پنشنرس نے رابطہ کیا اور مجھ سے استداع کی کے وہ آڑٹیکل 137 پاڑٹ 1 کو انگلش ڈرافٹ میں ٹرانسلیٹ کرکے انکو ای میل کردیں ۔ ان لوگوں نے کیس کرنے کے لئیے کسی اچھے وکیل سے رابطہ کیا ھے۔ اور انکو کیس سمجھانے کے لئیے اس آڑٹیکل 137 پاڑٹ 1 کو انگلش میں ٹرانسلیٹ کرکے دے دیں ۔تو میں نے ChatGPT کی مدد سے اسکو انگلش میں ٹرانسلیٹ کرکے انکو بھجوایا دیا اور یہ سوچ کر شائید اسی طرح کی ضرورت کسی اور کو بھی پڑجائیے ، اسلئیے اپنے فیس بک اور بلاگ سائیٹ پر اس کو اپلوڈ کرر ھا ھوں۔ واسلام طارق ۲۴ اپریل ۲۰۲۴ https://tariqazhar.blogspot.com/2021/03/article-137-part-1-regarding-vss-non.html https://tariqazhar.blogspot.com/2021/03/article-137-part-2-guide-lines.html Important Note: All retired PTCL employees who opted for VSS in March 2008 or later and did not receive pension are urged to carefully read Article-137 (comprising two parts) and comprehend the injustice perpetrated against them. Approximately 20,000 individuals who rightfully deserved pension were unjustly denied it upon opting for VSS. As per the Constitution and pension laws, pension is a legal entitlement for government employees with ten or more years of service; dismissal from employment does not negate this right. The question remains: did these retired PTCL employees commit any offense by accepting VSS and consequently losing their pension rights? What recourse do these non-pensioners have now? This article delves into the controversy surrounding the 2008 VSS package and the absence of pension provision for those with less than 20 years of service. Despite no stipulation in the terms and conditions of the VSS 2008 package prohibiting pension provision, these retirees were denied their rightful benefits. It is imperative to pursue legal action against those responsible for this injustice. The landmark decision on July 6, 2015, favoring Riyaz's case sets a precedent. He successfully secured government salary and pension through a reference. Similarly, affected individuals should demand government pension and salary by following the outlined guidelines, including departmental appeals and writ petitions in the High Court. The petition should not only seek restoration of announced pension but also salary adjustments according to government scales until retirement. Those interested in obtaining PDF copies of Article 137 can provide their name and WhatsApp number in the comments for distribution. It's crucial to disseminate this information widely among PTCL retirees and widows whose spouses retired under VSS without pension, so they can also prepare for legal action. Thank you for your attention. (Tariq) 12-3-2021 Article-137 Part 1 Title: Unveiling the Injustice: PTCL's Cruelty Towards Its Employees Subject: Shedding light on the cruelty, abuse, and injustice perpetrated by PTCL and PTET against more than twenty thousand government employees through the VS 2008 scheme, depriving them of their rightful pension despite qualifying for it as per government pension rules due to their ten years or more of service. Dear PTCL Colleagues, Peace and blessings be upon you. Few may be aware of the plight faced by PTCL government employees in 2007-2008, who transitioned from the corporation to become its employees on January 1, 1996. The offering of the VSS package in November 2007 was unlawful, as it contradicted government rules established under the Government Civil Servants Act, 1973. Additionally, employees were considered civil servants under the new clause 11A of the Act, rendering them immune to dismissal via VSS or any other means. According to the law, pension entitlement was reserved for those with twenty or more years of qualified service, making the provision of such rights illegal and unauthorized. Notably, the omission of this law from the terms and conditions of the VSS 2008 package constituted a grave violation, urging individuals not to accept such terms. Following the privatization of PTCL in June 2007, management fell under the control of Etisalat, a UAE-based company. Upon assuming control, their immediate agenda was staff reduction. They categorized surplus staff by grade and transferred them accordingly, effectively halting their employment. Majority of these surplus staff, ranging from Grade 1 to Grade 7, were telephone operators. Subsequently, a Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) was announced in November 2007 to trim the workforce. Notably, regular government employees of T&T and PTC, who transitioned to PTCL on January 1, 1996, were offered this package. However, such actions lacked legal authority, as these employees were protected under the Government Civil Servants Act, 1973, and various clauses of the PT [Reorganization] Act, 1996. The "11A" clause, introduced via Ordinance No. XX/2001, strictly permitted the adjustment of surplus staff, precluding VSS or any similar offers. The journey to rectify this injustice begins with awareness and collective action. Let us stand united in pursuit of justice.It is worth noting that the VSS granted in 1997-1998 was not illegal. However, the inclusion of clause 11A rendered the VSS 2008 entirely illegal. At that time, individuals might not have possessed the requisite understanding. Otherwise, any PTCL employee could have challenged it in the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, prompting the High Court to apply it to PTCL, thereby halting the unjust treatment of transferred employees and ensuring its application solely to those joining the company after January 1, 1996. Typically, only private organizations resort to dismissing employees through Golden Shake Hand or VSS, where Master and Servant rules apply. However, the oppressive management of PTCL in the VSS 2007-2008 package, announced on November 15, 2007, forcibly transferred thousands of former T&T and Corporation employees of civil status working in PTCL to VSS-2008, depriving them of their rightful pensions. Recalling the Pension Rules of the Federal Government applicable to Civil Servants, it is evident that a government servant becomes entitled to pension on retirement after completing ten years or more of consolidated service. This rule underscores the injustice faced by former T&T and PTC employees working in PTCL, who, although not classified as civil servants, are subject to government rules under the Civil Servant Act, 1973. This order was reinforced by a five-member bench of the Supreme Court, dismissing PTCL and PTET's appeal petition dated February 19, 2016 (2016SCMR1362) against the Masood Bhatti case (2012SCMR152).And he also upheld the judgment of the three-judge Supreme Court on October 7, 2011, in favor of Masood Bhatti and others, affirming that PTCL, upon transfer from the Corporation on January 1, 1996, would be subject to the Government Civil Servants Act, 1973. These rules, termed statutory, dictate that neither PTCL nor the government can unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of service to the detriment of these employees. Clause (1)19 of the Civil Servant Act 1973 explicitly states that every civil servant who retires is entitled to pension or gratuity. Clause (3)19 of the same act specifies that pension is withheld only from those civil servants who are dismissed from their jobs, with the possibility of some compensation. Therefore, it appears that over twenty thousand retirees were unjustly denied their pension by opting for VSS, akin to being dismissed without cause, and the money received through VSS can be seen as compensation for this dismissal. So the question arises: on what grounds were they dismissed from their jobs? Regarding the VSS Terms and Conditions outlined in serial number VI on page 9/11 of the VSS-2008 package, while they were provided in English, the instructions given in Urdu lacked the stipulation that "those with less than twenty years of collated service shall not be granted pension" or that "those with less than twenty years of collated service shall not be entitled to pension." Instead, the Urdu instructions only mentioned the eligibility criteria for pre-retirement, indicating that employees with less than 20 years of service were not eligible for premature retirement. This discrepancy raises questions about why such employees were prematurely retired without being offered VSS. It's puzzling why VSS was extended to these individuals when the terms and conditions of the VSS 2008 package did not explicitly exclude pension payments for those with less than 20 years of qualified service. Furthermore, a condition was added without enumeration stating, "Qualified service shall not include the period spent in training and taking extraordinary leave [in Terms and Conditions]." This condition led thousands of telephone operators, technicians, and supervisors to opt for VSS, believing their training period would be deducted from their service, thereby depriving them of their pension. This injustice is glaring PTCL initially enticed employees with promises of pension, only to withhold it upon opting for VSS. Many individuals were approved for pension director account pension, and some even received pension payments at the post office before being unjustly deprived of it. In the legal saga involving Azhar Ali Babar, the court's ruling marked a significant milestone, shedding light on the critical importance of meticulously reviewing the terms and conditions of contractual agreements prior to their acceptance. PTCL's ill-fated attempt to withhold pension benefits from individuals with less than twenty years of qualified service was not only deemed unlawful but also served as a stark reminder of the inherent obligation to honor the terms outlined in the Separation Scheme (VSS) 2008. This scheme, notably absent any explicit exclusion of such individuals from pension eligibility, underscored the foundational principle that contractual parties are duty-bound to abide by the terms mutually agreed upon. Moreover, the legal fallout from PTCL's unilateral deviation from the agreed-upon terms not only constituted a breach of contract but also exemplified the consequential legal ramifications that accompany such actions. Thus, the case of Azhar Ali Babar stands [Azhar Ali Baber case ‏2013 P L C 345 ‏[Peshawar High Court ] as a testament to the unwavering significance of contractual fidelity and the imperative of upholding legal integrity within the realm of commercial agreements. Upon examining the notifications of both the Voluntary Separation Schemes (VSS) of 1997-1998 and 2007-2008, a notable contrast emerges regarding the eligibility criteria for pension benefits. The VSS 1997-1998 explicitly outlines in its terms and conditions the provision for pension benefits for employees with over ten years of qualified service. In stark contrast, the VSS 2007-2008 fails to specify any such minimum service requirement for pension eligibility. This omission becomes a significant concern, particularly for the numerous PTCL employees who opted for the VSS 2008 package, having completed service periods ranging from 10 to 20 years. The role of the Pakistan Employees Trust (PTET) in this matter cannot be overstated. Established in 1996 with the primary objective of managing pensions for government employees, PTET was entrusted with the responsibility of adhering to government pension rules. However, the trust's failure to provide pensions to employees with ten or more years of service but less than twenty, as stipulated in VSS 2008, represents not only a breach of trust but also a violation of constitutional articles guaranteeing legal equality (Article 4) and prohibiting discrimination (Article 27).It's imperative to underscore that the pension entitlements of PTCL retirees should not be subject to arbitrary decisions or external influences. The actions of PTET's Board of Trustees, seemingly influenced by factors such as privatization and alleged bribery, undermine the fundamental rights of PTCL retirees and undermine the rule of law established by the government. This situation demands urgent attention and corrective measures to rectify the injustices perpetrated against the affected employees, ensuring that they receive the pension benefits rightfully owed to them. Upholding principles of fairness, equality, and adherence to established laws is essential in restoring trust and safeguarding the rights of all PTCL employees, both past and present. In the draft, there are a few points that need clarification and some sentences could be rephrased for clarity. Here's a revised version: "On February 19, 2016, in the case [2016SCMR1362], a five-member bench of the Supreme Court upheld the decision made on October 7, 2011, in the Masood Bhatti case [now 2012SCMR152]. The decision stipulated that employees transferred from the Corporation to the Company on January 1, 1996, would be governed by rules under the Government Civil Servants Act, 1973, applicable to civil servants in other government institutions. However, they wouldn't be classified as civil servants within PTCL, and neither PTCL nor the government could make adverse changes to their service terms. The government would serve as their guarantor, especially concerning pension provision and benefits. It's important to note that the Supreme Court's orders weren't independent but rather interpretations of relevant provisions in the PTC Act 1991 and the Pakistan Telecommunication [Reorganization] Act 1996. Thus, stating that the Supreme Court's order came on October 7, 2011, when VSS was offered without pension in 2008, would be incorrect. The PT (Reorganization) Act 1996 was in effect, under which HPTCL was established from January 1, 1996. Consequently, it was their obligation to adhere to relevant clauses 35 and 36 of the Act in 2008 and refrain from actions contrary to it. Regarding the contention that transferred employees aren't civil servants and rules can't be applied, it's pertinent to consider the Supreme Court's judgment. In paragraph 6 of the judgment, the Supreme Court states, "By virtue of the above provisions, he became an employee of the Corporation for the first time and then he ceased to be a civil servant of the Company." However, they remain subject to provisions of Section 3 to Section 22 of their Terms and Conditions of Service in the Civil Servants Act, 1973, as well as Section (2) 9 of the 1991 Act and Section (2) 35 of the 1996 Act, affording them protection under (a) 36 and (b). Should PTCL or PTET employees violate these laws, PTCL employees have the right to approach the High Courts under Article 199 of the Constitution. It's crucial to remember that only civil servants of the government have this authority, not employees of private corporations or companies. Therefore, PTCL's alteration of pension rights, offering VSS instead of adjusting under Section 11A of the Act, and dismissing employees without pension violate relevant sections of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. To encourage and mobilize affected individuals, my article, published on March 22, 2016, advised filing departmental appeals as outlined in Article No. 3, followed by writ petitions in the High Courts under Article 199 of the Constitution. Drafts of these writ petitions were provided separately for those recruited in T&T and PTC in articles 27 and 28, which were uploaded on Facebook and my blog site. Unfortunately, while more than fifteen thousand people filed departmental appeals, only a few hundred proceeded to file writ petitions. To date, no High Court has issued a decision based on merit. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, the lawyer representing PTCL and PTET, consistently sought to prevent High Courts from deciding these cases on merit, aiming to avoid decisions that might reach the Supreme Court. This is despite numerous Supreme Court rulings affirming that pension is a statutory right, not a discretionary benefit, underscoring that pension is an entitlement for retired government employees." 8. On April 13, 2018, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions in the banking case and issued an order to the management of UBL Bank to retrench 5416 bank employees on October 10, 1997, due to staff reduction. Despite being dismissed from the job, they should be given pension based on 10 years of consolidated service. Due to this concern, lawyer Shahid Anwar Bajwa prefers to avoid bringing cases to the Supreme Court. Consequently, cases brought by VSS non-pensioners petitioners to the High Court remain pending, with some decisions being delayed. The judges in these high courts openly supported PTCL and PTET, obstructing justice. As a High Court Judge, they exerted influence against petitioners, non-pensioners, and PTCL pensioners, hindering cases from reaching completion if they were contrary to their interests. This obstruction ultimately forces cases to the Supreme Court, where the pensioners with ten or more years of qualified service are likely to prevail, compelling PTCT to provide pension benefits. 9. Allow me to illustrate with an example. Writ Petition No. 2114/2016, filed by Ghulam Sarwar and Associates in the Islamabad High Court on May 31, 2016, saw its decision rendered on February 13, 2020, nearly four years later. Honorable Gul Hasan Aurangzeb dismissed it as non-maintainable, abstaining from a decision on merit. The dismissal was based on the erroneous notion that the petitioners lacked authority to approach the High Courts. However, the Supreme Court, in Masood Bhatti and others vs. Federation of Pakistan, emphasized that employees transferred to corporations after January 1, 1996, retain the right to approach High Courts under statutory rules. This precedent nullified a judgment by a two-member bench of the Sindh High Court, which had previously dismissed similar writ petitions. Despite this, the Islamabad High Court, under Mr. Justice Mian Gul Aurangzeb, deemed petition 2114/2016 inadmissible, wrongly denying VSS 2008 non-pensioners petitioners the right to approach the High Court. And how did they come up with this idea after four years when they had heard the same petition three times. He started his first hearing in January 2017 and completed it by 17 April 2017 and secured the decision. On June 25, 2017, when it was expected that this safe decision would be announced, the honorable judge announced that he had not yet written the decision, but he would pronounce his decision on September 27, 2017 after the court holidays. When this case came up on September 27, 2017, instead of giving a verdict, they started re-hearing on PTCL lawyer Emma's request, first gave them a week's time and started hearing again at the end of October 2017 or early November 2017. I happened and by the grace of God, on February 28, 2018, he once again secured the decision, which was reserved for more than a year. Then on March 14, 2018 they clubbed this case along with other new cases and then started hearing for the third time and then the decision came on February 13, 2020 and it was dismissed on the ground of non-maintainable. They could have dismissed it in the beginning, if they had done so, surely these petitioners would have got relief by now from the Supreme Court stage. Many such PTCL non-pensioners have filed cases in the Lahore High Court as well, they have filed similar constitutional petitions as per my instructions, most of them have been disposed off without any authoritative decision. As his lawyer Anwar Shahid Bajwa wanted. And the High Court did not give a decision in favor of anyone. Just by issuing these orders to the respondent, the petitioners who have filed departmental appeals, which are pending with the MDPTET and President PTCL, should decide on the same and report to the court within two months. Do. Most of the non-punished PTCL petitioners who had filed those petitions were always in touch with me and giving me updates. When the decision on the writ petitions of these people also came, they told me that their writ petitions were disposed of despite taking such a long time. Those people were very worried. I reassured them that there is nothing to worry about. Now we will see what these people decide on your departmental appeals within two months according to the court orders. If they don't decide or take a negative decision and you don't give pension to people, then you have to appeal again in Lahore High Court and request the court to order them to pay pension according to the law. Do it because it is their legal right. I also told him that I will make his petition and draft for him if he wants. But after two months they never contacted me nor told me what was the decision on their departmental appeals and disappeared like a horn from a donkey's head. I myself was surprised as to where the people who were constantly in touch with me and took me as guides suddenly disappeared. After some time, a friend of mine from Lahore told me that PTET has started paying pension to most of such non-pensioners. He will not give his reference or his reference to anyone else on this condition. There was a lady operator among them. I was very saddened to hear all this. If the people of Allah had told it, it would have benefited them and others. Similarly, many such people have filed cases in the Sindh High Court and their writ petitions have been disposed of. According to this order of the court, PTCL and PTET will decide on their departmental appeals within six months as per the law. As agreed between the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondents. When I was told this, believe me I shook my head and at the same time informed them that forget that PTCL will accept the right to collect pension for them so that PTET can give them this pension. . They will give this report in the court that the decision we gave according to our law was correct, they are not entitled to pension. The lawyer of the petitioners, whom all Karachiites know, if this order is passed by the court, the law belongs to the government of the petitioners i.e. the transferred employees, in which a retired government employee becomes entitled to pension after 10 years of consolidated service. Now it has been heard that these people have filed appeals in the Supreme Court and for this they have appointed the son of famous lawyer Abdul Rahim Bhatti as a lawyer. Certainly, let's refine and expand the response: In the cases concerning non-pensioners who opted for the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS), a recurring argument from their lawyers is that these individuals willingly accepted the terms of the VSS and thus should not expect further benefits such as pension. However, this argument overlooks the fact that pension rights are distinct from the compensation received through VSS. While the VSS package provided financial compensation for early departure from employment, it does not invalidate the legal entitlement to pension based on qualifying years of service, typically ten years or more. It's crucial to recognize that those seeking pension benefits are not asking for extra compensation; rather, they are rightfully claiming what they are owed based on their years of dedicated service to the organization. Despite this legal clarity, it's disheartening to observe the reluctance of both the High Courts and the Supreme Court to address and resolve the issue, thereby denying these individuals their rightful pension. This injustice has significantly impacted more than twenty thousand former PTCL employees who were effectively coerced into early retirement without pension benefits. The consequences of this decision have been devastating, with many retirees having passed away, leaving behind widows and dependents who are now struggling to make ends meet without the support of a pension. The plight of these families is compounded by the fact that many of the deceased employees were pressured into accepting VSS under duress or through threats, leaving their loved ones in dire financial straits. Despite enduring this hardship for nearly two decades, their legitimate claims for pension remain unaddressed, exacerbating their already challenging circumstances. It's imperative for the legal system to rectify this grave injustice and ensure that these individuals receive the pension benefits they are rightfully entitled to, providing them with the financial stability and dignity they deserve. I began motivating non-pensioners by penning my inaugural article on Facebook. Its genesis on February 22, 2016, stemmed from a Supreme Court ruling on February 19, 2016, and a subsequent reversal on October 7, 2011. This decree confirmed that erstwhile PTCL employees transferred on January 1, 1996, would fall under the Government of Pakistan Civil Servants Act, 1973, despite being civil servants. They would not be designated as "servants," and neither PTCL nor the government could alter rules to their detriment. With this in mind, I authored editorial number 1 for all VC pensioners, emphasizing unity in their legal battle for rights. Although I am neither retired with VSS nor a non-pensioner, I retired on January 14, 2012, after 35 years of service. My initial article, subsequent replies, and the Urdu version have persisted, aiming to rectify the injustice against VS non-pensioners. The catalyst for this article was to highlight the favorable Supreme Court decision (2015SCMR1783) for Muhammad Riaz (Raja Riaz), entitling him to government pension and salary, unjustly withheld by PTCL since July 1, 2005. This precedent benefits employees similarly situated to Raja Riaz. PTCL and PTET's failure to adhere to Supreme Court rulings necessitates legal action. Thus, I urge you to petition the High Courts, empowered by Article 189 of the Constitution, to uphold Supreme Court decisions. If you seek your entitlement to government salary and pension, initiate departmental appeals and, if necessary, file writ petitions. I've included a draft of the departmental appeal in part 2 of this article and guidance on hiring a lawyer. Best regards, Muhammad Tariq Azhar Retired General Manager (Ops) PTCL Rawalpindi Dated 12-3-2021