Article-180[ Regarding letter to GM PTET.Drafted through the help of ChatGPT]

 Article -180 

نوٹ: چاٹ جی پی ٹی کی مدد سے میں نے  مسٹر  محمد فاروق جنرل منیجر پی ٹی کے نام تنبیہ خط تیار کیا ھے کیونکے   وہ ان پی ٹی سی ایل پنشنرز پٹیشنرز  کو  ھراساں کرنے والے خطوط بھجوارھے ھیں کے  جنھوں نے  سابقہ ٹی اینڈ ٹی ڈیپاڑٹمنٹ  میں گریڈ 1 تا گریڈ 16 تک کی کسی پوسٹ پر کام کیا ھو اور وہ  چاھے  انکی ریٹائیرمنٹ اسی  لوئیر گریڈ سے  یا گریڈ 17 یا اس سے اپر گریڈ میں کیوں ھی نہ  ھوئی ھو، کے وہ گورمنٹ کے ان  پنشنری بینیفٹس میں دئیے گئیے اضافے کے حقدار نھیں ھو سکتے جو وہ اپنے سرکاری ریٹائیڑڈ ملازمین کو دینے کا اعلان کرتی ھے۔ وہ اپنے ان خطوط میں اسلام آباد ھائی کوڑٹ کا انکی انٹرا کوڑٹوں پر اپیل کے 2 نومبر 2021 کے فیصلے کا پیرا نمبر (iii) 19 کو quote کرکے فرمارھے ھیں کے وہ ورک مین یا ورکر کی اس تعریف میں آتے ھیں  جو فیکٹری ایکٹ 1934 یا ورکمین کمپنسیشن ایکٹ 1923 میں دی گئی ھے . اسلئیے وہ گورمنٹ کے ان  پنشنری بینیفٹس میں دئیے گئیے اضافے کے حقدار نھیں ھو سکتے  جو وہ اپنے سول سرونٹ کو دیتی ھے۔ جی ایم صاحب نہایت ھی غلط ورکمین  یا ورکر کی تعریف کررھے ھیں  جبکے ان دونوں ایکٹز میں ایسا کچھ  بھی نھیں صرف  ورکمین کمپنسیشن ایکٹ 1923  ٹی اینڈ ٹی ڈیپاڑٹمنٹ میں آؤٹ ڈور کرنے والے ملازمین کو ورکمین ٹہرایا گیا ھے تاکے  کام کے دوران زخمی یا مرنے کی صورت میں انکو معاوضہ دیا جاسکے۔ جہاں تک پنشن دینے کا تعلق وہ انکو  بحیثیت ریٹائیڑڈ گورمنٹ سرونٹ دی جاتی ھے۔ سابقہ ٹی اینڈ ٹی ڈیپاڑٹمنٹ  گریڈ 1 تا گریڈ 16 تک کے ریٹئیڑڈ ملازمین کو ورک میں گردانے کی اختراع انکے وکیل شاھد انور باجواہ کا ھے جنھوں نے عدالت سے جھوٹ اور غلط بیانی کی۔اس سلسلے میں اگر آپ لوگ میرا آڑٹیکل 176  پورا اطمینان سے پڑھ لیں تو آپکو  بہت معلومات  ھوجائیں گی۔

جی ایم صاحب عدالتی پیرا (iii)19 کی compliance میں تو بہت پھرتی  دکھا رھے ھیں مگر اسی عدالتی فیصلے کے پیرا (i)19 پر عمل کرنے میں پھرتی دکھانے پر قاصر  ھیں جسمیں کہا گیا جو پٹیشنر  ٹی اینڈ میں بھرتی ھوئیے ، سول سرونٹ ایکٹ 1973 کی شق (b)(1)2  کے تحت سول سرونٹ کی تعریف میں آتے ھیں  اور نارملی ریٹائیڑڈ  ھوئیے ھوں وہ گورمنٹ کے ان  پنشنری بینیفٹس میں دئیے گئیے اضافے کے حقدار  ھیں ۔ 

جی ایم صاحب کو چاھئیے تھا اس پر بھی پھرتی دکھاتے اور عدالتی کے اس حکم کے مطابق ایسے پٹیشنروں گورمنٹ کے پنشری بینیفٹس کے بقایا جات دینے کے لئیے خطوط جاری کرتے جسطرح انھوں نے 343 ایسے ھی پٹیشنروں کو  26 فروری 2018  کو خطوط جاری کئے تھے  ، سپریم کوڑٹ کے 15 فروری 2018 کے حکم کے مطابق۔

میں نے مندرجہ بالا انھی سب باتوں کا احاطہ کرکے انکو یہ خط لکھا اور عدالتی فیصلے کے فیصلے کے   پیرا (i)19 کے تحت  گورمنٹ کے پنشنری بینیفٹس کے بقایا جات فوری طور پر ادا کرنے کو کہا ھے اور اسکی کاپی سیکٹری (MoITT) اسلام آباد کو بھی دی اور ان سے گزارش کی کے وہ بھی  اس پر جلد از جلد عمل کرائیں ۔ 

میں نے بحیثیت Main Respondents انکی دائیر کردہ  انٹرا کوڑٹ اپیل  نمبر  ICA-98/2020 یہ خط  جی ایم پی ٹی ای ٹی کو لکھا ۔ آپ لوگ بھی اسی طرح اپنے نام سے بطور  Respondents یا Main Respondents  اسی خط کو لکھ کر جی ایم پی ٹی ای ٹی    کو ضرور بھیجیں بزریعہ TCS یا بزریعہ  UMS رجسڑڈ ڈا ک ضرور بھیجیں بشرطیہ کے اگر آپ بھی عدالتی فیصلے کے پیرا (i)19 پر پورا اترتے ھوں ۔  بس دیر نہ کریں جلد سے جلد کریں اور اپنا حق لیں . شکریہ

واسلام 

(طارق )

11-07-2024

                                   “Drafted letter with the help of ChatGPT”

To

Mr Muhammad Farooq

General Manager (PTET)

Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust (PTET),

Tele-House  Mauve Area

G-10/4

Islamabad 44000

Subject: Misrepresentations and Non-Compliance with Supreme Court Directive on Pensioner Benefits and urgent  Compliance Required with Islamabad High Court's Decision  of dated November   2, 2021,  para 19(i)

and Cessation of Unlawful Communications

Dear Mr. Muhammad Farooq,

A-o-A

This letter aims to address a matter of utmost importance and urgency arising out of the recent actions taken by your office, which not only breach legal protocols but also disrespect the rulings of the Islamabad High Court.

Firstly , I want to draw your kind attention to  the Islamabad High Court Division Bench's detailed decision on November 2, 2021, regarding the appeals filed by PTET and PTCL (ICA-82/2020), there has been a grave misunderstanding and misapplication of the court’s directives on your part. These appeals were in response to the judgment handed down by Honorable Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb on March 3, 2020, which resolved numerous petitions, including WP-523/2012 filed by Rasool Khan and others, disposing of them collectively.

In the said decision, the High Court directed that former employees of the Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department, who retired under normal circumstances without opting for the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS), are entitled to the government-announced pension benefits. Despite this clear mandate, your issuance of letters to petitioners suggesting their ineligibility based on erroneous interpretations of their status as 'workmen' under the Factories Act 1934 and Workmen Compensation Act 1923 is not only misleading but legally incorrect.

Moreover, the reliance on Advocate Shahid Anwar Bajwa’s misrepresentations during court proceedings, which led to the controversial verdict on November 2, 2021, cannot be overlooked. The Supreme Court, in its deliberations in the case of Masood Bhatti versus Federation of Pakistan in August 2011, had already established that employees of the T&T Department, thereafter PTCL employees, retain their right to statutory protection and governmental pension benefits according to the Civil Servant Act 1973.

It is, therefore, a significant oversight and miscarriage of justice on your part to deny the same class of pensioners their rightful benefits based on arbitrary distinctions. This act of sending letters to the petitioners from June 10, 2024, onwards, contradicts the very essence of the Supreme Court’s previous orders and misinterprets the High Court's ruling of November 2, 2021 given in Para 19(iii) in the said judgement of dated of dated November 2, 2021

I am writing to you concerning a matter of utmost urgency and significance which pertains to the directives issued by the Islamabad High Court on November 2, 2021, in the case marked under ICT-98/2020 and its detailed decision on ICT-82/2020. As a respondent in the said case, along with my 19 colleagues. Your unlawful action as stated above ,  not only in direct contravention of the court's orders but also a misrepresentation of legal statuses under various acts, notably the Factories Act 1934 and the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923.

According to the court's decision, particularly highlighted in para, 19(i) it has been established that all 20 of us are subjected to specific legal provisions and protections. Despite this, it has been observed that the letters sent to PTCL petitioners from grade 1 to grade 16 have been issued without a proper understanding of the Factories Act 1934, which applies to factory workers dealing with machinery and the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, which schedules under section (xiii) of Schedule-II as per clause 2(1)(n)(ii)    specifically categorizes the type of workers in the Telegraph and Telephone Departments dealing with outdoor duties as workmen.

This misunderstanding and subsequent issuance of such letters directly challenge and insult the court's ruling. Furthermore, it is essential to highlight the role played by Advocate Shahid Anwar Bajwa in misguiding the court under direct instructions to categorize employees from grade 1 to 16 as workmen, suggesting that they cannot be provided with government-announced pensionary benefits and incentives. This information was not only misleading but also resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice and misinterpretation of the applicable laws.

In this regard, I would like to draw your attention to a memo sent by the Director General of the erstwhile T&T Department to the Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi, on December 10, 1988. This internal letter raised the question of whether low-grade employees such as linemen, technicians, wiremen, etc., working outdoors in the T&T are covered under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. This would entitle them to compensation in the event of injury, loss of limbs, or death while performing their duties. Furthermore, because of this applicability, these employees would consequently be excluded from the category of Civil Servants under clause 2(1)(b) (iii) of the Civil Servant Act, 1973. [which states that “ a person who is a “worker “ or “ workman “ as defined in the Factories Act,1934 or Workman’s Compensation Act,1923” is excluded to be a Civil Servant as defined in section 2(1)(b) of the said Act, 1973]. The  query was whether these individuals could still be considered under the provisions of the Civil Servant Act, 1973, due to their employment in a government department.The Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi, responded via U.O No 3/2/78-R, 2 dated January 1, 1989, stating that such employees working outdoors could not be considered Civil Servants as per clause 2(1)(b) (iii)  of the Civil Servant Act, 1973. Thus, they fall outside the jurisdiction of laws framed under the Civil Servant Act, 1973, including the Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1973. However, it was mentioned that although these employees do not fit the definition mentioned, they could still be considered government employees since they work within a government department and are thus governed by rules such as the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1960, which generally apply to other government employees. In cases of death, injury, or damage to limb(s) during field duties, these individuals are only entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

It is imperative that the incorrect actions taken based on advocate Shahid Anwar Bajwa’s false representations and the misunderstanding of the legal framework are corrected immediately. Your office is hence urged to revisit and cease any further communications that do not align with the legal standings as clarified by both the judiciary and the relevant laws.

Therefore, any correspondence you have sent to the lower-grade petitioners in this context is illegal for several reasons. Firstly, these petitioners do not fall within the definition of 'workman' under the Factories Act, 1934, or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Secondly, their pension is being disbursed under the Civil Servant Act, 1973, section 19(1) as civil servants. It is particularly surprising that for the petitioners to whom you have denied government pension benefits through your letters, numerous similar petitioners were provided detailed statements on February 26, 2018, regarding the arrears of government-proclaimed pension benefits, which were to be paid within fifteen days as per the Supreme Court's order dated February 15, 2018. Thus, the Trust has indeed disbursed increased pensionary benefits to 343 such petitioners, of which more than 50% were former employees of the T&T Department ranging from grades 1 to 16.

This double standard is astonishing. You promptly notified petitioners from grade 1 to grade 16 that they would not receive the increased pensionary benefits as per the court's decision under paragraph 19 (iii). I urge you to show the same diligence in complying with paragraph 19(i) of the court's order, which entitles petitioners to the government-declared pensionary benefits increase. These are the individuals who are deemed civil servants under section 2(1)(b) of the Civil Servant Act, 1973, and have retired either normally or at the age of sixty. I request immediate action be taken to comply with the court's orders in paragraph 19(i) and to disburse the declared government pensionary benefit increases to the deserving petitioners promptly, just as was done for the 343 petitioners in February 2018.

I insist on an urgent reevaluation of this matter and expect a corrective course of action to be undertaken at your earliest convenience, in respect with and compliance to the judicial orders and the spirit of law under which they were issued.

Sincerely,

[Muhammad Tariq Azhar]

[Main respondent in ICA-98/2020]

PPO #:- 25866

Employee# :10007620

Cc:

Secretary (MoITT)Ministry of Information Technology & Telecommunication 7th Floor, Kohsar Block, Pak Secretariat, 

 Islamabad.

I humbly  request to the Secretary, Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication, Islamabad, urging their intervention to ensure the prompt execution of the November 2, 2021, court order as in Para 19(i) of the said judgement ,thereby addressing the grievances of the affected petitioners

[MoITT Ref :   File No 7-3/2011-Coord]