Re-publication of my Special -Article-121

1

 Special Article-121

ایم ڈی پی ٹی ای ٹی کی بونگیاں 

عزیز پی ٹی سی ایل ساتھیو 

اسلام و علیکم 

کچھ دن پہلے میں نے ڈپٹی سیکریٹری ( ایڈمن)  منسٹری آئی ٹی ٹی کی طرف سے ایم ڈی پی ٹی ای ٹی کو 16 جون 2020 کی تاریخ میں لکھا ھوا لیٹر پوسٹ کیا تھا جو اب دوبارا بھی پوسٹ کردیا ھے ، اس لیٹر میں ڈپٹی سیکریٹری صاحب نے ایم ڈی پی ٹی ی ٹی کو  لکھا تھا کے وہ بوڑڈ آف ٹرسٹیز سینٹ کی 28 جنوری 2020 کو , پی ٹی سی ایل پنشنر کو پنشن کے تمام بقایا جات ادا کرنے ادا کرنے کے حق میں منظور کردہ قرار داد کے مطابق اور 3 مارچ کو اسلام آباد ھائی کوڑٹ کے پی ٹی سی ایل پٹیشنروں کے حق میں آئیے میں فیصلے کے مطابق پنشن کے بقایا جات کی ادائیگیاں کرے ، اس سے پہلے کوئی خراب صورت حال پیدا ھو جائیے ۔ جناب ایم ڈی پی ٹی ای ٹی نے بجائیے اس پر عمل کرنے ایک بہت ھی اچھوتا جواب ، اپنے 19 جون 2020  کے تحریر کردہ خط میں  ڈپٹی سیکریٹری کو بھیج دیا ۔ اسکی کاپیاں بھی بھی یہاں پوسٹ کررھا ھوں ۔ جب میں نے اسکا یہ جواب ملا تو میرے تن بدن میں آگ لگ گئی ۔ عجیب بونگی باتیں لکھیں اور یہ بتایا کے پی ٹی سی ایل کی پنشن انکریز کا اختیار صرف پی ٹی ای ٹی کے بوڑڈ آف ٹرسٹیز کو ھے ، اور عجیب قسم کے رولز بتائیے ، جس کو پڑھ کر مجھے معلوم کے ایم ڈی صاحب کو کچھ معلوم ھی نھیں انھوں نے   سینیٹ سٹینڈگ کمیٹی کی رپوڑٹ پڑھی ھی  نھیں جسکی سفارشات سینیٹ نے اپنے28 جنوری کے اجلاس میں منظور کی تھی اور پی ٹی ای ٹی کو پنشن کی ادئیگیوں کا حکم دیا تھا ۔ میں نے ایم ڈی پی ٹی ای ٹی کے انکے اس خط کا مدلل جواب دیا ھے ھر طرح کے قانونی اور عدالتی ریفرنسس کو کوڈ کرکے ۔ انکو پہلے میں نے یہ مشورہ دیا کے انکو چاھئیے تھا پہلے وہ یہ اسپیشل رپوڑٹ پیرا وائیز پڑھتے اور پھر جواب دیتے کے اس سے متفق ھوئیے یا نھیں اور اگر متفق نھیں ھوئیے تو اپنے اس متفق نہ ھونے کا ٹھوس قانونی جواز دینا چاھئیے تھا ، یہ کیا بغیر پڑھے ادھر ادھر سے مارنا شروع کردیا اور لکھ دیا جی ھمارے لئیے اس پر عمل کرنا مشکل ھے . بحر حال آپ لوگ بھی میرے ان کو دئیے گئیے جوابات کو غور سے پڑھیں اور اپنی رائیے دیں۔ میں اسکی دستخط شدہ ھاڑڈ کاپیاں ان سب کے علاوہ سینیٹر روبینہ خالدہ صاحبہ چئیر پرسن کو بھی الگ سے بھجوا رھا ھوں اور ان سے میں نے یہ ھی عرض کے انکے خلاف ایکشن لیا جائیے جیسا کے میں نے اپنے اس لیٹر کے آخری پیرے میں لکھا ھے ۔ آپ بھی اس پیرے جو ضرور پڑھیں ۔ شکریہ 

واسلام

 محمد طارق اظہر

راولپنڈی

28-06-2020

FYI also

Regards

Tariq

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Muhammad Tariq Azhar <azhar.tariq@gmail.com>

Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 at 16:24

Subject: - NON COMPLIANCE OF SENATE RESOULATION AND ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT ORDERS ON BASELESS & UN-LAWFULL JUSTIFICATIONS

To: <hamid.farooq@ptet.com.pk>

Cc: <Secretary@moitt.gov.pk>, <dsadmin@moitt.gov.pk>

To

      Mr. Hamid  Farooq

      Managing Director (PTET)

      Pakistan Telecommunications Employees  Trust

      Tele House , Mauve Area, G-10/4

      Kashmir Highway,

     Islamabad

Subject:-  NON COMPLIANCE OF SENATE RESOULATION AND ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT ORDERS ON BASELESS & UN-LAWFULL  JUSTIFICATIONS BY MD PTET

References : Your letter No PTET/Cor-Min/2020 dated 19t June 2020 ,in response of Joint Secretary Admn) MoITT letter No 2-10/2020-Council(Senate) dated 16th June 2020

Dear Sir,

                It is with great regret that you have responded vide your  letter dated 19th June 2020  to the Deputy Secretary (Admn) MoITT referred above, in  very unreasonable and blatantly refuse manner . Your negative  reply to him , is far from the ground realities. In his letter, the Deputy Secretary (Admn) MoITT directed the Board of Trustees to pay the arrears of pension to all PTCL pensioners as per the resolution passed unanimously by the Hon'ble Upper Senate on January 28, 2020 and also comply the order of Honorable Islamabad High Court of  dated  3rd March 2020, for the payment of  pension to the transferred employees,  in accordance with the government notified  increases . Note that the resolution, dated 28 January 2020, required the Trust to comply in terms of Rule 196 (3) of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Senate ,2012. Which provides that after the adoption of the report by House the same shall be communicated to the Ministry concerned for implementation and in case the Ministry is unable to implement  the decision of the  House  ,it shall inform to the House within two month of the reasons  thereof, and if the  Ministry fails to do so the decision of the House shall be binding. This recent letter of dated  16th June 2020 from Deputy Secretary (Admn) of  Ministry of  Information Technology  & Telecomm  to the  M D Trust, is linked to it. In which a  warning has also been issued to the Trust that in case of non compliance , undesirable situation can be arised.  .  

       The Senate Standing Committee  on Information Technology & Telecom,  presented its detailed special report on the working of Board of Trustees of PTET , in the  Senate on 7th  January 2020, In this report, the committee had opened the whole working of the board of trustees and explained how this Board of Trustees is working in the interest of PTCL, not in the interest of PTCL pensioners, for whom this trust was formed. It is advisable that you should have to  first go through special report very thoroughly and then to submit Para wise reply. But unfortunaly you could not do that and got your release by giving a roundabout answer to the Deputy Secretary (Admn ) MoITT  vide your letter referred above. Earlier, the General Manager (PTET)  Farooq Ahmed, had given a similar baseless and fabricated reply on February 6, 2020 to MoITT,  which you are confirming and calling your reply an edition to that. Which is also surprising one . You misrepsented the irrational and vile reply, distorting  Act 1996 and Court decision and deliberately trying to cover many facts just to throw dust in the eyes of Deputy Secretary (Admn ) MoITT, which is very irritating.   As an affected PTCL pensioner, I have a lot of objections and reservations about your reply to the Deputy Secretary (Admn) MoITT and I think you have tried unsuccessfully trying to save the skin of  Trust.  

The reasons for my objections and reservations are as under :-  

1. You mentioned your reply that the Trust has filed intra-court appeals against the March 3rd 2020 decision of the Islamabad High Court, but did not mention the Court did not issue any injunction order for not implementing the IHC decision of dated 3rd March 2020, to the Trust, in spite of the facts their lawyer Shahid Anwar Bajwa made many pleas and appeals to the Court for such injunction.  On the contrary, the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Mr. Athar Minallah, asked to him i.e.  Trust's counsel, Shahid Anwar Bajwa, "what is wrong with giving them the increased pension when the Trust had already paid such pensions to likewise?". And in reply , the council informed that Trust had some reservation on it. The Trust, till date, failed to implement the IHC order of dated 3rd March 2020. Now most of the petitioners have filed contempt of court cases against you and Mazhar Hussain, Chairman of the Board of Trustees. It is beyond comprehension what were the objections and reservations of the Trust in the decisions of the court in favor of those petitioners on the basis of which they filed intra-court appeals against them. Such petitioners, in their respective petitions, had only sought to grant only Government Pension Increases which the Trust had already paid , in February 2018, to 343 such PTCL Petitioners as per the order of the Supreme Court dated February 15, 2018.

2.                   You have mentioned in your reply that that annually pension increases are being paid to PTCL Pensioners on the approval of Board of Trustees in terms of the exclusive authority  given to Board of Trustees is given in Clause 46 (2)(a)  of the PT Act   1996  and in PTET Rule 2012, which is totally wrong and fabricated as firstly you wrongly interpreted Clause 46 (2)(a)  of the PT Act   1996  that Board of Trustees have exclusive right to determine pensions. Secondly the PTET Rules 2012 does not exist for transferred employees in PTCL (detail of which is given in Para-3 below) . The Clause 46 (2)(a)  of the PT Act   1996  relates to exclusive rights of Board of Trustee in case of determining " pension benefits " only not for "pension". This right for increasing "pension' , is exclusive right of Government as mentioned in the Clause  46 (1)(d)  of the same PT Act   1996 which states  " make provision for the payment of the "pensions" to the telecommunication employees to the extent of their entitlement". And this clause i.e. 46 (1)(d) is clearly stated by the Honorable Supreme Court in paragraph 18 of its judgment of dated 12th June 2015 reported in 2015 S C M R 1472 . Had  the Clause 46 (2)(a)  of the PT Act 1996 , been interpreted by HSCP , as you are interpreting, it might be possible that the decision of HSCP of dated 12th June 2015, would not be in favor of PTCL Pensioners.  In conclusion the HSCP clearly directed that " the Board of Trustees of the Trust is bound  to fallow such announcement of the Government in respect of such employees i.e. for Pension Increase. So tell , under what authority and rule the Board of Trustees , continuously  approving the annually pension increase of retired transferred employees in PTCL. Such illegal action by them tantamount to contempt of court.

3.       You have mentioned that all pensioners are being paid monthly pensions on the basis  of annually increases decided by Board of Trustees in accordance to PTET Pension Rules 2012 duly notified  by the  by the Federal Government . Here you again concealed the fact that the PTET  Pension Rules 2012 had been set-aside by Honorable Peshawar High Court in her order of dated 3rd July 2014 in the judgment in writ petition No W P -2657 of 2012,  filed by Yousaf Afridi & others.The Honorable PHC has ordered that such PTET Rules 2012 will be applicable to those company employees , who have been appointed in the company after 1st January 1996. The PTET has filled Civil Petitions in HSCP  in  CPs  1597, 1602 & 2064 of 2014, but the same was dismissed by HSCP vide her order of dated 12th June  2015 reported in 2015 S C M R 1472 and the Review Petition of PTET against it  also dismissed by HSCP on 17th May 2017 . This PTET Rules-2012  also set-aside by Honorable Lahore High Court  on 4th March 2016, as intimated by Senate Standing Committee in its report at Para G(2).   

4.       In accordance to your statement that PTET  has fulfilled its obligation to comply   the order of HSCP of 12th June 2012 by giving the pension increase as per GoP to the Petitioners, in fact   the PTET had partially complied it. Firstly, if you carefully read the said  order, it is for all such employees . HSCP indicated that " the Board of Trustees of the Trust is bound  to fallow such announcement of the Government in respect of such employees ". Secondly the Trust should ,had to implement to all non petitioners also in accordance rules and principle laid down by the HSCP  in Hameed Akhter Niazi case i.e. Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. Secretary Establishment in 1996 SCMR 1185 " which states " that decision of FSTC or Supreme Court in  favor of any government employee who litigated the case, the benefit of which  will extended to all such employees whether  they are party of the case or not, instead of asking them to approach the Supreme Court or any relevant forum  Supreme Court for such benefits.  And  in the case of  "Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi and others Vs Federation of Pakistan  commonly known as Anita Turab Ali case [PLD 2013 S.C . 195] , a three-member bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the HSCP enunciated a principle of law in the case  Hameed Akhter Niazi i.e. Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. Secretary Establishment in 1996 SCMR 1185 ". Such decision of 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 litigated it. If the institution or the bureaucrat disobey and violates this legal principle, contempt of court proceeding against him or them will be iniated   under  Article 204(2)(a) .�

In the end, I have to say only ,that , since PTET's Board of Trustees is abusing PTCL pensioners and not giving them their due rights and contemning the orders of High Courts, Supreme Court and even of the Upper House Senate,  so it is the  only demand of the PTCL pensioners to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and to the Honorable Chairman of Senate that  this cruel  Board of Trustees, be immediately dissolved and its oppressive Chairman, Managing Director and General manager be sacked immediately. And pension disbursement process  is handed over to Accountant General of Pakistan with all exclusive powers of dissolved Board of Trustees , by amending related Clause of  Act 1996 . And  if there is any legal complication in doing so, than an independent institution should be set up in the style of Controller of Military Accounts Pension accordingly, by giving aforesaid  all powers dissolved Board of Trustees.

 

Sincerely Yours

 (Muhammad  Tariq Azhar)

PTCL Pensioner  & Main Petitioner  [Case WP-4588/2018 in IHC]

On  behalf of All PTCL Pensioners

 

Copy for information and  necessary action to:-

 The Secretary (MoITT)

 Ministry of Information & Technology 

Islamabad 

Sent from Rawalpindi Pakistan via iPad