English Translation of Article-184 through ChatGPT

Subject: Illegal Issuance of Letters to Retired PTCL Officers by GM PTET,  a Clear Contempt of Court

Dear PTCL Colleagues,

Assalam-u-Alaikum,

With reference to the subject above, I wish to inform you that the letters issued by GM PTET to our esteemed retired PTCL officers are not only illegal but also constitute contempt of court. This is because the Supreme Court, in the cases of Masood Bhatti (2012 SCMR 152) and 2016 SCMR 1362, has established that former employees of the T&T Department, who served before the creation of the Corporation in 1991, were categorized as civil servants. However, after their transition to the Corporation and later to the Company, their status as civil servants was nullified. Nevertheless, statutory rules created under the Civil Servant Act of 1973 continued to apply to them.

It seems that the GM PTET has grossly misunderstood the matter by classifying these retired officers, who held gazetted positions, as workmen. The officers who have been issued these unauthorized letters were recruited through the Federal Public Service Commission under the Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules of 1973. They initially joined the T&T Department as Assistant Divisional Engineers in Grade 17 and were subsequently promoted to higher grades (18, 19, and 20) under the same rules. The Divisional Engineer role in T&T was the backbone of the department and held significant responsibility as an executing authority, overseeing crucial operations beyond internal and external telephone exchange work. Unlike workmen, these engineers were not involved in manual labor like climbing telegraph poles or digging for cable laying.

The Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1923 was intended specifically for those who perform physically demanding and high-risk tasks, where injuries, broken limbs, or fatalities could occur. The Act ensures adequate compensation for such employees. In T&T, only those employed specifically for high-risk, field-related duties—such as climbing poles or excavating for cable laying—were classified as workmen. This compensation right extended not only to regular employees engaged in hazardous work but also to daily wage workers, contract staff, or casual labor hired under Muster Roll for such risky tasks.

Below, I am providing an excerpt from the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1923, which clarifies who in the Telegraph Department qualifies as a workman.

Extract from Workman Compensation Act 1923

2.   Definition.– (1) In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,

    (n)   “workman” means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer’s trade or business) who is–specified in Schedule II, or in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II,

SCHEDULE II

[See section 2(1)(n)]

LIST OF PERSONS WHO, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(1)(N), ARE INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF WORKMEN

      (ix)  employed in setting up, repairing, maintaining, or taking down any telegraph or telephone line or post or any overhead electric line or cable or post or standard for the same; or

         (x)  employed, [189][* * *] in the construction, working, repair or demolition of any aerial ropeway, canal pipeline, or sewer; or

        (xi)  employed in the service of any fire-brigade; or

Clarification under Schedule (ix)2 Section 2(1)(n)

The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 clearly specifies in Section 2(1)(n) under Schedule (ix)2 that employees of the Telegraph Department, who are hired specifically for the repair of telegraph or telephone lines, overhead electrical work, or cables and posts, are classified as “workmen.” This classification ensures that they receive compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, in cases of injury or death during such work. Now, I ask GM PTET to explain whether a Divisional Engineer was ever hired to perform such physical tasks, typically assigned to workmen, which involve potential hazards.

In his letter, the GM PTET references Paragraph 19 (iii) of the Islamabad High Court Division Bench decision dated November 2, 2021, suggesting that officers classified under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 are not entitled to federal government pension benefits. This argument implies that retired officers, such as Divisional Engineers who managed outdoor telegraph line maintenance and repairs in January 1991, are considered workmen and thus not eligible for pension benefits as civil servants. However, this reasoning is fundamentally flawed and legally incorrect.

According to the Civil Servants Act, 1973, Section 2(1)(b), those recruited through the Federal Public Service Commission for the government’s Telegraph and Telephone Department are classified as civil servants. How can GM PTET reclassify them as workmen? This argument contradicts the ruling of the Supreme Court’s three-member bench in the Masood Bhatti Case [2012 SCMR 152], where it was clearly stated in Paragraph 7:

"As noted above, there is no dispute that prior to the establishment of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation under the PTC Act, 1991, the appellants were civil servants. There is also no dispute that prior to 1991, the appellants [i.e., Masood Bhatti, former Director (B-19), Nasiruddin Ghouri, former Assistant Divisional Engineer (B-17), and Syed Muhammad Dil Awais, former Clerk (B-5)] were governed by the statutory rules formulated for civil servants under the Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 and Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1973."

This Supreme Court ruling invalidates GM PTET’s assertion that these officers became workmen due to the nature of their outdoor duties. Both gazetted officers (Grade 17 and above) and non-gazetted staff (Grade 1 to 16) were considered civil servants, and while their civil servant status ended with their transfer to the corporation and then to the company, they continued to be governed by statutory government rules under the Civil Servants Act, 1973.

Further supporting this, the Supreme Court’s five-member bench, in its February 19, 2016 decision on PTCL’s review petition against the Masood Bhatti Case [2016 SCMR 1362], affirmed in Paragraph 6 that:

"The former departmental employees of T&T became corporation employees under Section 9 of the PTC Act, 1991, and subsequently, company employees under Section 35 of the PT (Reorganization) Act, 1996. Their service terms and conditions were fully protected under Section 9(2) of the PTC Act, 1991, and Section 35(2) of the PT (Reorganization) Act, 1996. No term or condition can be altered to their disadvantage, and the Federal Government is bound to protect their current terms and conditions, including their right to government pensionary benefits. While they ceased to be civil servants, their service terms and conditions, covered under Sections 3-22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, are protected as statutory rules and can be enforced in High Courts, which have constitutional jurisdiction over these matters.”

Thus, GM PTET’s justification based on outdoor work responsibilities is invalid, and any misclassification of these officers as workmen is legally incorrect.

Under Section19(1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, PTET has refused to provide government pensionary benefits, which can be grounds for filing a contempt of court case. It appears that the PTET General Manager bases his arguments on the court's November 2, 2021, decision in paragraph 19 (iii), where it was noted that those employees defined as "workmen" under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1923 and the Factories Act of 1933 may not qualify as civil servants and hence are not entitled to government pensionary benefits. This decision, however, seems to have resulted from the misrepresentation by the PTET counsel, Shahid Anwar Bajwa, who erroneously argued that under T&T (Telegraph and Telephone), employees below grade 17 are classified as workmen and thus not eligible for government pensionary benefits. 

If Council Shahid Anwar Bajwa had informed the court of the actual facts—that one of the appellants, Syed Muhammad Dil Awais, was in grade B-5, a lower grade—this misinterpretation could have been avoided. The court might have then recognized that all employees under T&T prior to 1991 were considered civil servants. Consequently, the High Court’s decision in November 2, 2021, may have ruled differently regarding the eligibility of workmen for government pension benefits.

In its June 12, 2015, ruling (2015 SCMR 1472), the Supreme Court's three-member bench clearly stated that T&T employees transferred to the corporation and company are entitled to government pension benefits. Similarly, on February 15, 2018, the two-member bench ordered PTET to provide government pension benefits within 15 days to petitioners who retired normally. Consequently, PTET granted these pension benefits to 343 retired employees in compliance with the court order.

It is unclear on what legal grounds the PTET General Manager is now attempting to classify these retired employees as “workmen” rather than civil servants, despite the corporation’s previous payment of government pensions up until June 2010. This refusal to comply with the Supreme Court’s orders, by denying them the pension benefits declared by the government, constitutes a grave contempt of court.

I urge those receiving such letters from PTET to immediately respond, rejecting the classification of "workmen" and reserving the right to initiate contempt proceedings if necessary. I have provided enough information in this article for anyone to consider filing a contempt case.

As of January 1, 1991, I was working as the Controller of Telegraph Store, Karachi, and I have not received any such letter.

Best regards,  

Muhammad Tariq Azhar  

Retired General Manager (Ops) PTCL  

Date: November 7, 2024