Article-185[Regarding draft for CoC notice to GM PTET]

 Article-185

نوٹ: میرے بہت سے پی ٹی سی ایل ساتھیوں خاصکر میرے ساتھ ان پٹیشروں(آفیسران) جو میرے ساتھ اسلام آباد ھائی کوڑٹ ھمارے خلاف دائیر کی گئی پی ٹی ای ٹی کی طرف سے دائیر کردہ انٹرا کوڑٹ اپیل ICA-98/2020 میں ریسپونڈنٹ تھے ان کی درخواست پر کے لئیے میں نے یہ ڈرافٹ تیار کیا ھے۔ اور دوسرے ساتھی (آفیسران) جن کو بھی اس قسم کا غیر قانونی لیٹر جی ایم پی ٹی کی طرف سے ملا ھے،  اس ڈرافٹ سے فائیدہ اٹھانا چاھتے ھیں تو ضرو اٹھائیں۔ شکریہ

(طارق)

۱۲ نومبر ۲۰۲۴

[DRAFT]

To

Mr. Muhammad Farooq

General Manager (PTET)

Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust (PTET),

Tele-House Mauve Area G-10/4

Islamabad 44000

**Subject: Objection to Unlawful Classification of Retired PTCL Officers as "Workmen"**

 

**Reference:** Your Letter No. [Insert Letter No.] dated [Insert Date]

**Dear Sir,**

I am writing to formally object to your recent letter dated October 2024, which I received regarding the classification of certain retired PTCL officers, including myself, as "workmen" under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1923. I find this letter unacceptable, and its contents are inconsistent with applicable laws and judicial rulings.

1. **Employment Background**:  

   The officers you have addressed, myself included, were appointed to the T&T Department through the Federal Public Service Commission under the Civil Servants Act of 1973 and the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules of 1973. Each of us held positions as civil servants, beginning our careers in various grades, including Grades 17, 18, 19, and 20, with promotions and appointments made under these rules. I personally was appointed as an Assistant Divisional Engineer in Grade 17 in July 1977 and retired as a Director in Grade 19.

2. **Scope of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923**:  

   The Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1923 is specifically intended to cover individuals performing manual labor with a high risk of physical injury, such as line repairmen. As per Schedule 2, Section 2(1)(n)(ix)2, the Act covers those employed in tasks involving repair and maintenance of telegraph or telephone lines, electric lines, or cables. It is not meant for civil servants who were neither recruited for nor involved in such work. Therefore, your attempt to categorize us under this Act is legally incorrect and a misinterpretation of its scope.

3. **Contradiction to Civil Servants Act and Supreme Court Precedents**:  

   Your classification disregards the Civil Servants Act of 1973, specifically Section (b)(1)2, which defines us as civil servants, appointed through government procedures, and entitled to relevant benefits. The Supreme Court has confirmed in Masood Bhatti Case [2012 SCMR 152] that former T&T Department employees, prior to PTCL’s establishment under the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC) Act of 1991, were civil servants. This was reinforced by the Court in paragraph 7 of the ruling, affirming that these officers remained civil servants under the Act and subject to civil service rules, even after PTCL’s formation.

4. **Protected Service Terms and Conditions**:  

   According to the Supreme Court's decision of February 19, 2016 [2016 SCMR 1362], all terms and conditions of service for transferred T&T Department employees remain protected under Section (2)9 of the PTCL Act of 1991 and Section (2)35, (a)36, and (b) of the PT (Re-Organization) Act of 1996. This ruling clearly stipulates that these terms cannot be altered to the detriment of employees, including rights to government pension benefits.

5. **Violation of 2015 Supreme Court Order**:  

   The Supreme Court in its ruling of June 12, 2015 [2015 SCMR 1472] directed PTCL to continue government pension benefits for eligible former T&T employees, a directive PTET complied with for 343 petitioners. This compliance, implemented in February 2018, recognizes the entitlement to pension benefits based on government service. Your letter ignores this precedent, resulting in an unauthorized reclassification of retired officers.

6. **Misinterpretation of High Court Ruling of 2021 Due to Misinformation**:  

   The Islamabad High Court, on November 2, 2021, specifically restricted its ruling to the classification of employees in Grades 1 to 16, where certain manual workers could be classified as "workmen." This ruling, however, was based on incomplete information presented by Advocate Shahid Anwar Bajwa, who misrepresented facts to the Court. Advocate Bajwa inaccurately implied that only employees in Grades 17 and above had been recognized as civil servants in the Masood Bhatti case (2012 SCMR 152), overlooking the fact that the three appellants included a Grade 5 clerk, Syed Muhammad Dil Awaiz, who was also confirmed as a civil servant. The Court was therefore led to conclude that the previous ruling applied exclusively to higher-grade officers, resulting in its restrictive interpretation in Paragraph 19(iii) of the November 2, 2021 decision. If the Court had been accurately informed, it would not have issued a ruling that contradicts the Supreme Court’s comprehensive recognition of all former T&T employees as civil servants, regardless of grade.

Given the above facts, it is evident that your letter misapplies the Workmen’s Compensation Act to individuals who do not fit the legal criteria for "workmen" and goes against established court rulings. I request that you retract this letter immediately and cease any further attempts to classify retired civil servants as workmen, which amounts to contempt of court. If this matter is not resolved promptly, I reserve the right to pursue contempt proceedings against PTET.

Sincerely,  

[Your Name]

Retired.               (B- )

Respondent in ICA-.    /2020

Employee Number

CNIC # 

Contact #

Copy for information and n/a to

Mr. Mazhar Hussain  

Managing Director  

Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust (PTET)  

Tele-House, Mauve Area  

G-10/4, Islamabad 44000