Article-204[ Regarding Grok3 AI guide lines for vss np who want to litigate the case to get their pensioner y benefits]

 Article-204

Below is a detailed response in English, tailored to your request, providing guidelines for a VSS non-pensioner retiree to claim pensionary benefits based on the Supreme Court ruling of February 18, 2025, advice on engaging a lawyer, convincing a reluctant lawyer, and comprehensive drafts for a legal notice and writ petition, along with arguments for court proceedings.

Part 1: Guidelines for a VSS Non-Pensioner Retiree to Claim Pensionary Benefits

To a VSS Non-Pensioner Retiree (Retired under the 2008 Voluntary Separation Scheme):

If you are a retiree from Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) who opted for the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) in 2008 and have been denied pensionary benefits despite completing 10 or more years of qualifying service, the Supreme Court’s ruling on February 18, 2025, offers you a clear path to secure your rights. This judgment mandates that employees leaving government service with 10+ years of service are entitled to pension, a ruling that applies to you as a former T&T/PTC employee transferred to PTCL. Here’s how you can proceed:

 1 Understand Your Legal Right:

 ◦ The Supreme Court’s February 18, 2025, decision confirms your entitlement to pensionary benefits if you have 10 or more years of qualifying service, overriding PTCL’s 20-year requirement.

 ◦ This is reinforced by 2016 SCMR 1362 and Clause 19(1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, protecting your inherited rights as a former civil servant.

 2 Steps to Take:

 ◦ Gather Documents: Collect your service records (T&T/PTC/PTCL appointment letters, service certificates), VSS 2008 acceptance letter, and any PTCL/PTET correspondence denying pension.

 ◦ Engage a Lawyer: Hire a competent advocate (details below) and provide them with your documents and a clear explanation of your case.

 ◦ Serve a Legal Notice: Instruct your lawyer to send a legal notice to PTCL and PTET, demanding pension restoration within 30 days based on the 2025 ruling.

 ◦ File a Writ Petition: If the respondents fail to comply, file a constitutional petition under Article 199 in the appropriate High Court (e.g., Lahore High Court if you reside in Punjab).

 3 Choosing the Right Lawyer:

 ◦ Qualifications: Engage a lawyer with expertise in constitutional law, service law, and experience with Supreme Court precedents. Preferably, select someone who has handled cases against public sector entities like PTCL.

 ◦ What to Tell the Lawyer:

 ▪ Explain that you completed 10+ years of qualifying service before VSS 2008 and were denied pension due to PTCL’s illegal 20-year rule.

 ▪ Highlight the Supreme Court’s February 18, 2025, ruling as your primary legal basis, supported by 2016 SCMR 1362.

 ▪ Mention that this is a continuing violation (pension denied monthly), so it’s not time-barred.

 ▪ Request a legal notice followed by a writ petition if needed.

 4 If the Lawyer Refuses:

 ◦ Some lawyers may hesitate, citing prior dismissals as “time-barred.” Use the arguments below to convince them (also provided separately for lawyers).

Part 2: Convincing a Reluctant Lawyer – Arguments Against “Time-Barred” Objection

To the Lawyer Refusing to Take the Case:

If you believe this case cannot be pursued due to it being “time-barred” based on earlier High Court dismissals, I respectfully urge you to reconsider. The following legal arguments demonstrate that this case is not only viable but winnable, especially with the Supreme Court’s February 18, 2025, ruling:

 1 Supreme Court Ruling of February 18, 2025:

 ◦ This judgment explicitly states that an employee with 10+ years of qualifying service is entitled to pension upon leaving government service. It’s a fresh, binding precedent under Article 189, giving my client a new cause of action as of February 2025.

 ◦ PTCL’s 20-year rule is now indefensible, and this ruling resets any limitation concerns.

 2 Continuing Cause of Action:

 ◦ The denial of pension is an ongoing wrong, renewed each month my client is deprived of benefits. Per PLD 2003 SC 688, limitation does not apply to continuing violations until the breach ends. As of March 27, 2025, the injury persists, making this case timely.

 3 Prior Dismissals Not Binding:

 ◦ Earlier High Court dismissals were on technical grounds (limitation), not merits. Under Section 11, CPC, res judicata does not apply unless the substantive issue was adjudicated (PLD 1970 SC 173). The 2025 ruling introduces a new legal fact, allowing a fresh petition.

 4 Statutory and Constitutional Strength:

 ◦ Clause 19(1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and 2016 SCMR 1362 affirm my entitlement. PTCL’s policy also violates Articles 9 and 25 of the Constitution, strengthening the case.

 5 Moral and Professional Duty:

 ◦ Over 12,000 retirees are affected. By taking this case, you can secure justice for many, leveraging clear Supreme Court support. A well-drafted petition citing these authorities will likely succeed.

Please reconsider. This is not a time-barred case but a live issue with a strong legal foundation. I trust your expertise to champion my cause.

Part 3: Guidelines for the Lawyer

To the Advocate Engaged by the Retiree:

As counsel for a VSS 2008 non-pensioner retiree seeking pensionary benefits, your role is pivotal. Here’s how to proceed effectively:

 1 Initial Steps:

 ◦ Review Documents: Verify the client’s service records, VSS acceptance, and pension denial correspondence.

 ◦ Serve a Legal Notice: Draft and send a notice to PTCL’s President and PTET’s Managing Director, demanding compliance with the February 18, 2025, ruling within 30 days (draft below).

 ◦ Prepare a Writ Petition: If no response or a negative reply is received, file a constitutional petition in the High Court (draft below).

 2 Court Arguments:

 ◦ Primary Ground: The Supreme Court’s February 18, 2025, ruling mandates pension after 10+ years of service, directly applicable to your client.

 ◦ Supporting Precedent: Cite 2016 SCMR 1362, which voids PTCL’s 20-year rule.

 ◦ No Limitation: Argue the continuing cause of action (PLD 2003 SC 688), as pension denial is an ongoing breach.

 ◦ Statutory Rights: Invoke Clause 19(1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and Section 474AA of Civil Service Rules.

 ◦ Constitutional Violations: Highlight breaches of Articles 9 (livelihood) and 25 (equality).

 ◦ Distinguish Prior Cases: Emphasize that earlier dismissals were procedural, not substantive, and the 2025 ruling provides a fresh basis.

 3 Additional Actions:

 ◦ Coordinate with other affected retirees for a collective petition to enhance impact.

 ◦ Anticipate defenses (e.g., limitation, VSS waiver) and counter with the binding nature of Supreme Court rulings and statutory protections.

Part 4: Draft of a Comprehensive Legal Notice

LEGAL NOTICE�Dated: March 27, 2025

To:

 1 The President,�Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL),�PTCL Headquarters, G-8/4, Islamabad, Pakistan.

 2 The Managing Director,�Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust (PTET),�Tele-House, Mauve Area, G-10/4, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Subject: Demand for Restoration of Pensionary Benefits per Supreme Court Judgment Dated February 18, 2025

Sirs,

I represent [Client’s Name, e.g., Muhammad Aslam], a retired employee of PTCL who opted for the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) in 2008 after completing over 10 years of qualifying service, hereinafter “my client.” This notice demands immediate compliance with his lawful pension entitlement.

 1 Background:�My client served in the Telephone & Telegraph (T&T) Department and Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC), transferring to PTCL in 1996 with all rights intact under Section 35(2) of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996. He retired via VSS in 2008.

 2 Legal Entitlement:

 ◦ Supreme Court Judgment (February 18, 2025): Held that employees with 10+ years of qualifying service are entitled to pension upon leaving government service, applicable to my client.

 ◦ 2016 SCMR 1362: Declared PTCL’s 20-year qualifying service rule ultra vires.

 ◦ Civil Servants Act, 1973, Clause 19(1): Guarantees pension after 10 years, a right my client retains.

 3 Violation:�PTCL and PTET have unlawfully denied my client’s pension since 2008 by imposing a 20-year condition, contravening binding law.

 4 Demand:�Restore my client’s pension from his retirement date, with arrears and interest, within 30 days (by April 26, 2025).

 5 Consequences:�Failure to comply will compel my client to file a writ petition under Article 199, with all costs borne by you.

Yours sincerely,�[Advocate’s Name]�[Enrollment No., Address, Contact]

Part 5: Draft of a Comprehensive Writ Petition

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE�Writ Petition No. ____ of 2025

Petitioner:�[Muhammad Aslam],�Retired Employee of PTCL, Resident of [Address], Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.

Versus

Respondents:

 1 Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), through its President, Islamabad.

 2 Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust (PTET), through its Managing Director, Islamabad.

 3 Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of IT & Telecom, Islamabad.

Constitutional Petition Under Article 199

Subject: Enforcement of Pension Rights per Supreme Court Judgment of February 18, 2025

Facts:

 1 The petitioner served in T&T/PTC, transferring to PTCL in 1996 with statutory rights preserved.

 2 He retired under VSS 2008 after 10+ years of qualifying service, entitling him to pension.

 3 PTCL imposed a 20-year rule, denying pension despite 2016 SCMR 1362 and the February 18, 2025, ruling.

 4 A legal notice dated March 27, 2025, was ignored.

Grounds:

a. February 18, 2025, Ruling: Mandates pension after 10+ years, binding under Article 189.�b. Continuing Wrong: Ongoing denial defeats limitation (PLD 2003 SC 688).�c. 2016 SCMR 1362: Voids PTCL’s rule.�d. Statutory Right: Clause 19(1), Civil Servants Act, 1973.�e. Constitutional Breach: Articles 9 and 25 violated.

Prayer:

 1 Declare the 20-year rule void.

 2 Direct pension payment with arrears and interest.

 3 Award costs.

Dated: April 27, 2025�Advocate: [Name, Details]

Part 6: Lawyer’s Court Strategy

Arguments to Convince the Court:

 • Lead with the February 18, 2025, ruling as irrefutable authority.

 • Stress the continuing cause of action to dismiss limitation objections.

 • Cite 2016 SCMR 1362 and statutory provisions for cumulative effect.

 • Argue constitutional violations for broader impact.

 • Request exemplary relief (arrears with interest) to deter future denials.