Article-205[Regarding Publication of Translated of urdu Article-46 Dated 31-10-2017 into English]

 

Note :- Publication of Translated of urdu Article-46 Dated 31-10-2017 into English:

Article-46

Benefits of the Decision in Favor of Raja Muhammad Riaz and Its Implications for PTCL Pensioners and Serving Employees:

The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in its decision dated October 27, 2017 (Friday), issued a written judgment in the contempt of court appeal (Crl.O.P 63/2015) filed by Raja Muhammad Riaz in August 2015 against the former President of PTCL, Waleed Irshad. The written judgment was released the following day and uploaded with my notes on my Facebook, WhatsApp, Messenger, and blog site upon receipt. After thoroughly reviewing the decision, I concluded that the Supreme Court ruled strictly in accordance with the law, as per Raja Riaz’s appeal, without introducing any ambiguity or confusion. The court also disposed of other similar contempt of court applications, stating that since PTCL had settled Raja Riaz’s matter, it was unnecessary to issue separate rulings for those applications.

The implication is clear: since PTCL provided an undertaking to pay Raja Riaz salary and pension benefits as per government rules, it is equally bound to extend the same benefits to all others who filed similar applications for government-equivalent salary and pension. Therefore, the court found it unnecessary to issue separate decisions for each such application. However, the application filed by Advocate Sardar Latif Khosa to include 714 serving PTCL employees as parties in Raja Riaz’s contempt case (Crl.O.P 63/2015) was dismissed. The court’s reasoning was that since the contempt case was filed by Raja Riaz based on the Supreme Court’s decision in his favor on July 6, 2015, in Civil Petition No. 797/2015, and none of the 714 serving employees were parties to that petition, they could not be included in the contempt proceedings. The court further clarified that dismissing this application should not adversely affect the rights of the 714 employees, if any.

I believe this clarification by the court is significant. Had it not been included, it could have been interpreted as the court denying the 714 serving employees the same government-equivalent benefits that PTCL committed to providing Raja Riaz. The court also granted PTCL 15 days to comply with its order to provide Raja Riaz these benefits.

In my opinion, Advocate Sardar Latif Khosa should not have filed a request to include the 714 serving employees in Raja Riaz’s case. Instead, a separate appeal should have been filed on behalf of these employees, explicitly stating that they belong to the same category of PTCL employees as Raja Riaz, have the same issue, and are entitled to the same government-announced salary and pension increments as ordered by the Supreme Court in Raja Riaz’s Civil Petition No. 797/2015 on July 6, 2015. This entitlement is further supported by the precedent set in Hameed Akhtar Niazi vs. Secretary Establishment Division (1996 SCMR 1185).

I advise the 714 serving employees to wait for 15 days to see if PTCL fulfills its undertaking to pay Raja Riaz as per the court’s order, calculated by the AGPR, as mentioned in the October 27, 2017, ruling. My advice to all such employees and pensioners, whether part of this litigation or not, is to wait an additional month before filing an appeal or a direct contempt of court case in the Supreme Court based on non-compliance with the ruling in Hameed Akhtar Niazi vs. Secretary Establishment Division (1996 SCMR 1185). If PTCL fails to comply, it will face contempt of court penalties, and the Government of Pakistan, as guarantor, will be responsible for settling these dues.

Confusion Among VSS Retirees:

Many PTCL employees who retired under the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS), with or without pension, are confused and mistakenly believe they are not entitled to government-equivalent pension increments. However, those who retired under VSS in March 2008 received the government-announced 20% pension increment for 2008-2009 and the subsequent increment for 2009-2010. Problems arose when PTET (Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust) began unlawfully reducing increments from July 1, 2010, offering only an 8% increase instead of the government’s 15% for pensioners in 2010-2011. This led Muhammad Arif and 33 others to file a case in the Islamabad High Court (Writ Petition No. 148/2011), which ruled in their favor. PTCL’s appeals, including an intra-court appeal and a Supreme Court appeal, were dismissed, with the final review petition rejected on May 17, 2017. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Masood Bhatti vs. Others (2012 SCMR 152) clarified that these pensioners, transferred to PTCL from PTC on January 1, 1996, are governed by the Government of Pakistan’s Statutory Rules under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 (Sections 3 to 22). Thus, PTCL has no authority to alter their service terms detrimentally, including salary and pension increments.

Despite this, PTCL unlawfully stopped government-equivalent salary increments from January 1, 2005, and PTET began providing only an 8% pension increment from July 1, 2010, instead of the government’s higher rates (10-20%, except for 7.5% in 2015-2016). This non-compliance violates the PTET Trust Deed of April 2, 1994, incorporated into the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996 (Clause 44), which mandates that PTET pay pensions to transferred employees under government pension rules.

Clarification for VSS and Non-VSS Retirees:

The issue is not about VSS or non-VSS retirees but whether their status matches Raja Riaz’s. Raja Riaz, initially recruited by T&T, transferred to PTC, then to PTCL on January 1, 1996, and retired at 60, was deemed a civil servant under the Masood Bhatti case (2012 SCMR 152). Consequently, the court ordered PTCL to provide him government-equivalent salary and pension. Similarly, all regular employees transferred from PTC to PTCL on January 1, 1996, regardless of grade, share the same civil servant status. Whether they retire at 60, after 25 years of service, under VSS (with or without pension), due to compulsory retirement, medical grounds, or death, they are entitled to government-equivalent salary and pension as per their respective grades, as ordered for Raja Riaz.

VSS retirees should disregard misconceptions that they are ineligible for these benefits due to their VSS status. They should compare their status with Raja Riaz’s, as explained above. Those who are swayed by uninformed opinions will only confuse themselves. I pray that Allah grants them clarity. Amen!

Legal Suggestion:

Based on the translated text and the legal principles involved, here are my suggestions for PTCL employees and pensioners seeking government-equivalent salary and pension benefits:

1. Strategic Filing of Appeals:

• Instead of attempting to join existing cases (e.g., Raja Riaz’s contempt case), affected employees and pensioners should file separate petitions, clearly stating their employment history, transfer to PTCL on January 1, 1996, and entitlement to government-equivalent benefits under the Masood Bhatti (2012 SCMR 152) and Hameed Akhtar Niazi (1996 SCMR 1185) precedents. This approach avoids procedural complications, as seen in the dismissal of the application to include 714 employees in Raja Riaz’s case.

2. Wait for PTCL Compliance:

• As the Supreme Court granted PTCL 15 days to comply with Raja Riaz’s payment, employees and pensioners should monitor PTCL’s actions. If PTCL complies, it sets a precedent for similar payments. If not, they can file contempt of court petitions citing non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s orders and the referenced precedents.

3. Leverage Statutory Rules and Trust Deed:

• Emphasize that PTCL and PTET are bound by the Statutory Rules under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the PTET Trust Deed (April 2, 1994), incorporated into the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996. These legal frameworks prohibit PTCL/PTET from unilaterally reducing salary or pension increments below government rates.

4. VSS Retirees’ Entitlements:

• VSS retirees should assert their rights by clarifying their status as transferred employees (from PTC to PTCL on January 1, 1996). Their eligibility for government-equivalent benefits is not negated by VSS, as long as they meet the criteria of qualifying service (e.g., 10 years for pension eligibility) under the Trust Deed and Statutory Rules.

5. Avoid Hasty Litigation:

• As suggested in the text, waiting an additional month after the 15-day compliance period allows time to assess PTCL’s actions. This strategic pause can strengthen future claims by demonstrating PTCL’s non-compliance, if applicable, and avoid premature or redundant litigation.

6. Legal Representation:

• Engage competent legal counsel familiar with labor and pension laws to draft precise petitions, referencing the Masood Bhatti and Hameed Akhtar Niazi cases, the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the PTET Trust Deed. Avoid procedural errors, such as attempting to join unrelated cases, which can lead to dismissals.

7. Government’s Role as Guarantor:

• If PTCL/PTET fail to comply, petitioners should highlight the Government of Pakistan’s role as guarantor under the Trust Deed and the 1996 Act, potentially naming relevant government entities (e.g., Establishment Division) in legal proceedings to ensure enforcement.

By following these steps, employees and pensioners can strengthen their legal claims and avoid the procedural pitfalls highlighted in the text, ensuring their rights to government-equivalent benefits are upheld.

Regards

Muhammad Tariq Azhar

General Manager Ops (Rtd) PTCL

31-10-2017