Article-227 [ AI Grok clarification regarding discussion with Adv Asad Bukhari on VSS-2008 issue ]

 Article-227 [ AI Grok clarification regarding    discussion with Adv Asad Bukhari on VSS-2008 issue ]

“VSS is voluntary separation scheme , having its own terms and conditions . The person who opt for it , actually accept the terms of the scheme voluntarily and remains bound to its commitment and can't claim thereafter not promised in the scheme. It's voluntarily acceptance does not allow any thing extra than promised in the scheme. When anyone signed it , he actually shift himself from his original terms of service to the terms of the scheme and make himself bound to it.”

Adv Asad Bukhari is trying to convince me that those accept VSS-2008 without pension having less then  20 years qualifying service for the entitlement .Where my point of view is this.

For VSS-2008 acceptence there were 20 condtions  given in Para 5 of package letter. And every one who wanted to avail vss had to accept all such condtions.There was no any condtions that the pension will be given to those who would have QoS of 20 years and more.As you know Pension is the right not bountny.To give pension can not be make the part of package.Nothing such condtions were given in VSS-2008 package.As per saction 19(1) of  the Gov Civil Servant Act 1973 on retirement of a civil servant pension or graduty will be given.Where as per Section 474 AA minimum  QoS to become entitlement of pension is ten years and more.No pension for those who have been dissmised from service as per Section 19(2) of Act 1973.They retired about 12000 in vss 2008 without pension who had QoS ten years or more but less then 20 years Acording to Govt rule  all were leagally entiteled for pension.To give pension or not ,you can not make part of package to accept the vss.In 2016 SCMR 1362 ,the five member  SC bench clearly mentioned the transferrd employees in ptcl can not be called civil servant but Section 3 to Section 22 of Civil Servant Act 1973 would be applicable on them.

 Please generate a proper reply to him that to give pension or not can not be make of part of package . I is the right of retired civil servant and not bounty.

Respected Adv Asad Bukhari,

I appreciate your perspective on the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS-2008) and the binding nature of its terms for those who voluntarily opted for it. However, I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that employees who accepted VSS-2008 with less than 20 years of qualifying service (QoS) are precluded from claiming pension benefits. My viewpoint is grounded in the statutory framework governing civil servants’ rights, which treats pension as an inherent entitlement rather than a negotiable element of any separation package.

As you are aware, the VSS-2008 package, outlined in the relevant letter, included 20 conditions under Para 5 that applicants were required to accept in full. Notably, none of these conditions stipulated that pension would only be granted to those with 20 years or more of QoS, nor did they explicitly deny pension to those with 10 years or more but less than 20 years of service. The package focused on voluntary acceptance of separation terms, but it did not—and could not—override statutory pension rights.

Pension is a fundamental right of a retired civil servant, not a bounty or discretionary benefit. This principle is enshrined in Section 19(1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which mandates that upon retirement from service, a civil servant shall be entitled to receive such pension or gratuity as may be prescribed. Retirement under VSS qualifies as voluntary retirement, not dismissal or removal for disciplinary reasons, which is the only circumstance under Section 19(2) where pension can be denied. Furthermore, as per Section 474-AA of the relevant pension rules, the minimum QoS for pension entitlement is 10 years or more. Employees with QoS between 10 and 20 years are thus legally entitled to pension upon retirement, irrespective of any package terms.

It is impermissible to make the grant or denial of pension a part of the VSS package, as this would amount to contracting out of statutory obligations. Approximately 12,000 employees were retired under VSS-2008 without pension despite having 10 or more years of QoS, in clear violation of these rules. Such denial cannot be justified by voluntary acceptance of the scheme, as statutory rights like pension cannot be waived or bargained away in this manner.

This position is further reinforced by the Supreme Court’s judgment in 2016 SCMR 1362 (PTCL v. Masood Ahmed Bhatti), where a five-member bench held that while transferred employees in PTCL are not classified as civil servants, Sections 3 to 22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, remain applicable to them. This includes Section 19, affirming their pension entitlements upon retirement. The Court emphasized the protected nature of these service terms, which cannot be altered to the detriment of employees.

In light of these provisions and judicial precedent, employees who opted for VSS-2008 retain their right to pension if they meet the 10-year QoS threshold. Denying it based on the package terms would undermine the statutory safeguards designed to protect retirees. I urge you to reconsider this matter in the context of these legal imperatives.

Should you have any specific references from the VSS-2008 package or additional case law that contradicts this, I would be keen to review them for further discussion.

Best regards,

[M Tariq Azhar]

 Rtd GM(OPS)

 

Sir your assessments, observations and conclusions are thought provoking. Let me think and review and revisit my point of view on the non-pensionable vss. I don't wand to make it a point of controversy or debate but want to understand in the line you  thought about. Unfortunately the lawyers appeared on behalf of the aggrieved employees didn't argue or elaborated the vss scheme on the yardstick of contract act 1872.I I was of the view that VSS is a form of contract ,having it's own terms and conditions which may be different from the previous one.As It is voluntary. The employee has right to opt it or not . The relevant section which allow the PTCL management to introduce such scheme is Section 35(2) and narrated as under.

Secrion35(2) of PT(Re-organization) act 1996 "Subject to sub-section (3), the terms and conditions of service of any Transferred Employee shall not be altered adversely by the Company except in accordance with the laws of Pakistan or with the consent of the Transferred Employees and the award of appropriate compensation".  

I think this section permit the PTCL management to offer vss and by introducing this scheme and having statutory authorization under this section to alter and shift the protected Terms of service of transferred employees and make them agree to relinquish their original and  protected terms of service by accepting financial package  as appropriate compensation under the terms and conditions of vss. This was a consensual shift from one class of terms and conditions (protected) to another class of terms and conditions by accepting the VSS on the basis of "accept it or reject it" - Voluntary. As per contract act 1872 if the offeree accept an unambiguous terms of contract without any element of coercion, fraud and misrepresentation and execute the contract with his consent and free will then it become irreversible. 

If we say that there was an element of deception, misrepresentation, coercion and fraud but the lawyer's appearing in the courts on behalf of aggrieved employees could not prove so far.

The employees who accepted the non,-pensionable vss knowingly when they have option for not to opt it also and received RS.450,000 as separation bonus loosing their protected pensionary right born out of their  compromised statutory terms and conditions.  Regards, AsadBukhari

 

Respected Adv Asad Bukhari,

Thank you for your thoughtful response and for your willingness to revisit the matter. I appreciate your emphasis on understanding the issue without turning it into a debate, and I share the same goal. Your reference to Section 35(2) of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, and the Contract Act, 1872, is well-noted, as is your view of the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS-2008) as a consensual contract that allows for a shift from protected terms of service. However, I must respectfully submit that while VSS may involve voluntary acceptance, the denial of pension to eligible employees—those with 10 or more years of qualifying service (QoS)—cannot be justified as a valid contractual waiver, as it contravenes statutory protections and public policy. Allow me to elaborate with references to relevant laws and judicial precedents.

First, let’s reaffirm the statutory foundation of pension rights. Under Section 19(1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, “Upon retirement from service, a civil servant shall be entitled to receive such pension or gratuity as may be prescribed.” This entitlement is not discretionary but mandatory upon retirement, provided the minimum QoS is met. As per Rule 474-AA of the Civil Service Regulations (CSR), the minimum QoS for pension eligibility is 10 years or more. Importantly, Section 19(2) limits the denial of pension only to cases of dismissal for misconduct, not voluntary retirement schemes like VSS. In the context of PTCL employees, who were transferred from government service, the Supreme Court in PTCL v. Masood Ahmed Bhatti (2016 SCMR 1362) held that while these employees are not classified as civil servants post-transfer, Sections 3 to 22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, remain applicable to them, including Section 19’s pension provisions. The five-member bench emphasized that these protections cannot be altered to the employees’ detriment without adhering to law.

Your reliance on Section 35(2) of the PT (Re-organization) Act, 1996—which states, “Subject to sub-section (3), the terms and conditions of service of any Transferred Employee shall not be altered adversely by the Company except in accordance with the laws of Pakistan or with the consent of the Transferred Employees and the award of appropriate compensation”—is apt, but it must be read harmoniously with Section 36 of the same Act. Section 36 explicitly safeguards pension rights: “(1) All transferred employees who are entitled to pension benefits under the rules applicable to them immediately before the commencement of this Act shall continue to be entitled to such benefits. (2) The Company shall establish and maintain a pension fund for the benefit of such employees.” This underscores that pension is a preserved right from pre-privatization service, not subject to adverse alteration even with consent if it violates overarching laws.

Regarding the contractual nature of VSS under the Contract Act, 1872, I agree that voluntary acceptance creates a binding agreement (Section 10: “All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object”). However, Section 23 of the Contract Act renders an agreement void if its object or consideration is unlawful, including if it is “opposed to public policy.” Waiving statutory pension rights—particularly for employees with 10-20 years QoS who accepted VSS without pension—falls into this category. Pension is not a mere bounty or negotiable perk but a deferred wage and social security measure, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in multiple rulings. For instance, in Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada (1999 SCMR 2744), the Court held that pension is a “right earned by service” and “not a bounty,” protected under Article 9 of the Constitution (right to life, encompassing economic security). Similarly, in Government of Pakistan v. Zubair Ahmed (PLD 2014 SC 382), the apex court reiterated that pension rules cannot be applied retrospectively or adversely to deprive earned rights, as it offends public policy and fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court has consistently viewed attempts to contract out of statutory entitlements as void when they undermine public welfare. In PTCL v. Iqbal Nasir (PLD 2011 SC 132), the Court enforced protected terms of service for PTCL employees, holding that post-privatization changes must comply with law and cannot erode core benefits like pension without justification. Even in the recent Supreme Court judgment of July 10, 2025 (in the PTCL pension liability review petition, as reported in Dawn News and other sources), while affirming pension obligations for non-VSS transferred employees and directing payments within 90 days, the Court clarified exclusions for VSS optees. However, this does not settle the matter conclusively for non-pensionable VSS cases with 10+ years QoS, as it appears to rest on the assumption of valid waiver. Dissenting views and lower court remands (e.g., in Mst. Tasneem Fatima v. PTCL, where the Sindh High Court in 2022 remanded for re-evaluation of service length disputes under VSS, noting lack of evidence for denials) suggest room for challenge where the waiver is alleged to be uninformed or against policy.

You mentioned the absence of proven coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation in court arguments. While true in some cases, the inherent imbalance in employer-employee dynamics under VSS—offered on a “take it or leave it” basis amid fears of retrenchment—raises questions under Section 16 of the Contract Act (undue influence). Moreover, lawyers’ failure to invoke the Contract Act fully does not preclude the invalidity of the pension-denial clause. In Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456), the Supreme Court struck down contractual terms that contravened statutory rights, holding that “no contract can override the mandate of law.”

The approximately 12,000 employees retired under non-pensionable VSS-2008, despite 10+ years QoS, received a Rs. 450,000 separation bonus as “compensation,” but this cannot extinguish a statutory right. As the Supreme Court observed in a 2025 ruling on contractual service (Supreme Court on pension as deferred right, April 2025), “pension is not a concession but a deferred right of the employee, emphasizing its social welfare purpose.” Denying it via VSS terms defeats the object of the Civil Servants Act and PT Act, rendering that aspect void under Section 23 of the Contract Act.

I believe revisiting this through the lens of public policy and statutory primacy could lead to a different conclusion. If there are specific VSS documents or further case references supporting irrevocability despite these laws, I would welcome reviewing them.

Best regards,

Please regenerate it by adding this fact that as per Section 11A of civil servant Act 1973 regarding Absorption civil servant rendered surplus [Added by Ordinance XX of 2000].Hence the VSS-2008 was illegal.The VSS-2008 was offered mainly to remove civil servant rendered surplus. Where this Section 11A was added by ordinance to Absorb surplus staff. When The VSS-1997-1998 was given, this Section -11A was not available. In VSS-1998  beside the package ,pension was also given to those who  possessed QoS  10 years or more .It was not part of the terms and conditions

Respected Adv Asad Bukhari,

Thank you for your insightful response and for engaging in this discussion with an open mind. While I acknowledge your perspective that the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS-2008) constitutes a consensual contract under Section 35(2) of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, and the Contract Act, 1872, I respectfully submit that the denial of pension to employees with 10 or more years of qualifying service (QoS) under VSS-2008 is not only contrary to statutory protections but also potentially illegal due to the application of Section 11A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Allow me to elaborate with references to relevant laws and judicial precedents, incorporating the additional point about Section 11A and the precedent set by VSS-1997-98.

Statutory Protections for Pension Rights

Pension is a fundamental right of a retired civil servant, not a discretionary benefit or bounty. Section 19(1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, unequivocally states: “Upon retirement from service, a civil servant shall be entitled to receive such pension or gratuity as may be prescribed.” Rule 474-AA of the Civil Service Regulations (CSR) further clarifies that the minimum QoS for pension eligibility is 10 years or more. Section 19(2) restricts pension denial solely to cases of dismissal for misconduct, which does not apply to voluntary retirement under VSS. For PTCL employees, transferred from government service, the Supreme Court in PTCL v. Masood Ahmed Bhatti (2016 SCMR 1362) affirmed that Sections 3 to 22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, including Section 19, remain applicable, ensuring pension rights for those meeting the QoS threshold.

Moreover, Section 36(1) of the PT (Re-organization) Act, 1996, explicitly safeguards pension benefits: “All transferred employees who are entitled to pension benefits under the rules applicable to them immediately before the commencement of this Act shall continue to be entitled to such benefits.” This provision, read with Section 19, establishes pension as a protected right that cannot be extinguished by agreement unless permitted by law.

Illegality of VSS-2008 Under Section 11A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973

Your reference to Section 35(2) of the PT Act, 1996—“Subject to sub-section (3), the terms and conditions of service of any Transferred Employee shall not be altered adversely by the Company except in accordance with the laws of Pakistan or with the consent of the Transferred Employees and the award of appropriate compensation”—must be harmonized with Section 11A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, added via Ordinance XX of 2000. Section 11A states: “A civil servant who is rendered surplus as a result of any re-organization or winding up of a department or organization may be absorbed in any other cadre, department or organization in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, but such terms and conditions shall not be less favorable than those admissible to him immediately before such absorption.”

VSS-2008 was primarily offered to address surplus staff in PTCL following privatization, effectively targeting civil servants rendered surplus due to organizational restructuring. Section 11A mandates that such surplus employees be absorbed elsewhere with terms no less favorable than those previously enjoyed, including pension rights. Offering VSS-2008 with a condition that denies pension to employees with 10-20 years QoS—while providing only a Rs. 450,000 separation bonus as “compensation”—violates Section 11A, as it imposes less favorable terms than those guaranteed under the Civil Servants Act and CSR. The absence of any pension-denial clause in the 20 conditions listed in Para 5 of the VSS-2008 package letter further undermines its legitimacy, as it cannot implicitly override statutory mandates.

In contrast, the earlier VSS-1997-98, implemented before Section 11A was enacted, provided pension to employees with 10 or more years QoS in addition to the separation package, without making pension a negotiable term of the scheme. This precedent demonstrates that pension was treated as a distinct statutory entitlement, not a bargaining chip. The shift in VSS-2008 to exclude pension for approximately 12,000 employees with 10-20 years QoS thus marks a clear departure from both prior practice and legal requirements under Section 11A.

Contractual Validity and Public Policy

You rightly note that VSS-2008, as a voluntary scheme, operates under the Contract Act, 1872, where agreements are binding if made with free consent, lawful consideration, and lawful object (Section 10). However, Section 23 of the Contract Act renders agreements void if their object or consideration is unlawful or opposed to public policy. Denying pension—a deferred wage and social security measure—to eligible employees contravenes public policy, as pension is integral to the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution, encompassing economic security. The Supreme Court in Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada (1999 SCMR 2744) held that pension is a “right earned by service,” not a discretionary benefit, and in Government of Pakistan v. Zubair Ahmed (PLD 2014 SC 382), it ruled that pension rights cannot be adversely altered in violation of statutory protections.

The argument that employees voluntarily relinquished pension rights by accepting VSS-2008 does not hold when the scheme itself is misaligned with Section 11A. Even absent proven coercion or fraud (Section 14, Contract Act), the inherent power imbalance in an employer-employee context—where VSS was offered on a “take it or leave it” basis amid retrenchment fears—raises questions of undue influence under Section 16. The Supreme Court in Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456) struck down contractual terms that contravened statutory rights, emphasizing that “no contract can override the mandate of law.”

Judicial Precedents and Ongoing Litigation

The Supreme Court’s July 10, 2025, ruling on PTCL’s pension liability (as reported in Dawn News) reaffirmed pension obligations for non-VSS transferred employees but excluded VSS optees based on assumed waiver. However, this does not conclusively settle the issue for non-pensionable VSS-2008 cases, as dissenting opinions and lower court remands suggest. For instance, in Mst. Tasneem Fatima v. PTCL (2022, Sindh High Court), the court remanded cases for re-evaluation of service length and pension entitlements, noting PTCL’s failure to justify denials. Similarly, in PTCL v. Iqbal Nasir (PLD 2011 SC 132), the Supreme Court upheld protected service terms, rejecting unilateral alterations. These cases indicate that VSS-2008’s pension-denial terms may be challengeable as unlawful.

Conclusion

In light of Section 11A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, VSS-2008’s denial of pension to employees with 10-20 years QoS is arguably illegal, as it contravenes the mandate to maintain favorable terms for surplus staff. The precedent of VSS-1997-98, which preserved pension rights, reinforces this view. Statutory protections under Sections 19 and 36, coupled with judicial affirmations of pension as a right, not a bounty, render the pension-denial clause void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. I encourage further examination of VSS-2008’s compliance with Section 11A and invite any specific documents or counter-references you may have.

Best regards,

[M Tariq Azhar]

Rtd GM (ops) PTCL

27-08-2025

محترم ایڈووکیٹ اسد بخاری،

اسلام و علیکم

آپ کے گہرے جواب اور اس بحث میں کھلے ذہن سے حصہ لینے کے لیے آپ کا شکریہ۔ میں آپ کے اس نقطہ نظر کو سراہتا ہوں کہ وولنٹری سیپریشن اسکیم (VSS-2008) پاکستان ٹیلی کمیونیکیشن (ری آرگنائزیشن) ایکٹ 1996 کی دفعہ 35(2) اور کنٹریکٹ ایکٹ 1872 کے تحت ایک رضاکارانہ معاہدہ ہے۔ تاہم، میں عاجزی کے ساتھ یہ عرض کرتا ہوں کہ 10 سال یا اس سے زائد کوالیفائنگ سروس (QoS) والے ملازمین کو پنشن سے محروم کرنا نہ صرف قانونی تحفظات کے منافی ہے بلکہ سول سروینٹس ایکٹ 1973 کی دفعہ 11A کی روشنی میں ممکنہ طور پر غیر قانونی بھی ہے۔ اجازت دیں کہ میں متعلقہ قوانین اور عدالتی فیصلوں کے حوالوں کے ساتھ، دفعہ 11A اور VSS-1997-98 کے سابقہ نمونے کو شامل کرتے ہوئے تفصیل سے وضاحت کروں۔

پنشن کے حقوق کے لیے قانونی تحفظات

پنشن ایک ریٹائرڈ سول سروینٹ کا بنیادی حق ہے، نہ کہ کوئی عطیہ یا صوابدیدی فائدہ۔ سول سروینٹس ایکٹ 1973 کی دفعہ 19(1) واضح طور پر کہتی ہے: “ریٹائرمنٹ کے بعد، ایک سول سروینٹ کو ایسی پنشن یا گریجویٹی ملے گی جو مقرر کی گئی ہو۔” سول سروس ریگولیشنز (CSR) کے رول 474-AA کے مطابق، پنشن کے حق کے لیے کم از کم کوالیفائنگ سروس 10 سال یا اس سے زائد ہے۔ دفعہ 19(2) صرف بدعنوانی کی وجہ سے برخاستگی کے معاملات میں پنشن سے محرومی کی اجازت دیتی ہے، نہ کہ VSS جیسے رضاکارانہ ریٹائرمنٹ اسکیموں میں۔ پی ٹی سی ایل کے ملازمین، جو سرکاری ملازمت سے منتقل ہوئے، کے لیے سپریم کورٹ نے پی ٹی سی ایل بمقابلہ مسعود احمد بھٹی (2016 SCMR 1362) میں فیصلہ دیا کہ اگرچہ یہ ملازمین پرائیویٹائزیشن کے بعد سول سروینٹس نہیں رہے، لیکن سول سروینٹس ایکٹ 1973 کی دفعات 3 سے 22، بشمول دفعہ 19، ان پر लागو ہوتی ہیں، جو کوالیفائنگ سروس کے تقاضے پورے کرنے والوں کے لیے پنشن کے حقوق کو یقینی بناتی ہیں۔

مزید برآں، پی ٹی (ری آرگنائزیشن) ایکٹ 1996 کی دفعہ 36(1) پنشن کے فوائد کی واضح طور پر حفاظت کرتی ہے: “تمام منتقل شدہ ملازمین جو اس ایکٹ کے نفاذ سے فوراً قبل اپنے قابل اطلاق قواعد کے تحت پنشن کے حقدار تھے، وہ ان فوائد کے حقدار رہیں گے۔” یہ دفعہ، دفعہ 19 کے ساتھ مل کر، پنشن کو ایک محفوظ حق کے طور پر قائم کرتی ہے جسے قانون کی اجازت کے بغیر معاہدے کے ذریعے ختم نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔

سول سروینٹس ایکٹ 1973 کی دفعہ 11A کے تحت VSS-2008 کی غیر قانونی حیثیت

آپ نے پی ٹی ایکٹ 1996 کی دفعہ 35(2) کا حوالہ دیا، جو کہتی ہے: “سب سیکشن (3) کے تابع، کسی منتقل شدہ ملازم کی سروس کے شرائط و ضوابط کو کمپنی پاکستان کے قوانین کے مطابق یا منتقل شدہ ملازمین کی رضامندی اور مناسب معاوضے کی ادائیگی کے بغیر منفی طور پر تبدیل نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔” اسے سول سروینٹس ایکٹ 1973 کی دفعہ 11A کے ساتھ ہم آہنگ کرنا ضروری ہے، جو آرڈیننس XX آف 2000 کے ذریعے شامل کی گئی۔ دفعہ 11A بیان کرتی ہے: “ایک سول سروینٹ جو کسی ڈیپارٹمنٹ یا تنظیم کی تنظیم نو یا خاتمے کے نتیجے میں زائد ہو جاتا ہے، اسے کسی دوسرے کیڈر، ڈیپارٹمنٹ یا تنظیم میں اس طرح اور ایسی شرائط و ضوابط کے تحت جذب کیا جا سکتا ہے جو مقرر کیے جائیں، لیکن ایسی شرائط و ضوابط اس سے پہلے کے قابل اطلاق شرائط سے کم سازگار نہیں ہوں گی۔”

VSS-2008 بنیادی طور پر پرائیویٹائزیشن کے بعد پی ٹی سی ایل میں زائد ملازمین کو ہٹانے کے لیے پیش کی گئی تھی، جو سول سروینٹس کو تنظیم نو کی وجہ سے زائد قرار دیا گیا تھا۔ دفعہ 11A کا تقاضا ہے کہ ایسے زائد ملازمین کو دوسرے مقامات پر ایسی شرائط کے ساتھ جذب کیا جائے جو پنشن کے حقوق سمیت پچھلی شرائط سے کم نہ ہوں۔ VSS-2008 کے تحت 10 سے 20 سال کی کوالیفائنگ سروس والے ملازمین کو پنشن سے محروم کرنا اور صرف 450,000 روپے کا سیپریشن بونس دینا دفعہ 11A کی خلاف ورزی ہے، کیونکہ یہ سول سروینٹس ایکٹ اور CSR کے تحت ضمانت شدہ شرائط سے کم سازگار ہے۔ VSS-2008 کے پیکج خط کے پیرا 5 میں درج 20 شرائط میں پنشن سے محرومی کی کوئی شق شامل نہیں تھی، جو اس کی قانونی حیثیت کو مزید کمزور کرتی ہے، کیونکہ یہ قانونی تقاضوں کو بالواسطہ طور پر نظرانداز نہیں کر سکتی۔

اس کے برعکس، VSS-1997-98، جو دفعہ 11A کے نفاذ سے پہلے پیش کی گئی تھی، نے 10 سال یا اس سے زائد کوالیفائنگ سروس والے ملازمین کو سیپریشن پیکج کے علاوہ پنشن بھی دی، بغیر اسے اسکیم کی شرائط کا حصہ بنائے۔ یہ سابقہ مثال واضح کرتی ہے کہ پنشن کو ایک الگ قانونی حق کے طور پر تسلیم کیا گیا تھا، نہ کہ سودے بازی کا حصہ۔ VSS-2008 کا 10 سے 20 سال کوالیفائنگ سروس والے تقریباً 12,000 ملازمین کے لیے پنشن کو خارج کرنا اس لیے پچھلی مشق اور دفعہ 11A کے قانونی تقاضوں سے واضح انحراف ہے۔

معاہدے کی قانونی حیثیت اور عوامی پالیسی

آپ نے درست طور پر کہا کہ VSS-2008 ایک رضاکارانہ اسکیم ہے جو کنٹریکٹ ایکٹ 1872 کے تحت چلتی ہے، جہاں معاہدے اس وقت پابند ہوتے ہیں جب وہ آزادانہ رضامندی، قانونی معاوضے اور قانونی مقصد کے ساتھ بنائے جائیں (دفعہ 10)۔ تاہم، کنٹریکٹ ایکٹ کی دفعہ 23 کہتی ہے کہ اگر معاہدے کا مقصد یا معاوضہ غیر قانونی ہو یا عوامی پالیسی کے منافی ہو تو وہ معاہدہ باطل ہے۔ اہل ملازمین سے پنشن کا حق چھیننا—جو کہ ایک مؤخر شدہ تنخواہ اور سماجی تحفظ کا اقدام ہے—عوامی پالیسی کے منافی ہے، کیونکہ پنشن آئین کے آرٹیکل 9 (حق حیات، جس میں معاشی تحفظ شامل ہے) سے جڑی ہے۔ سپریم کورٹ نے فیڈریشن آف پاکستان بمقابلہ محمد طارق پیرزادہ (1999 SCMR 2744) میں فیصلہ دیا کہ پنشن “سروس کے ذریعے کمائی گئی حق” ہے، نہ کہ عطیہ، اور گورنمنٹ آف پاکستان بمقابلہ زبیر احمد (PLD 2014 SC 382) میں کہا کہ پنشن کے حقوق کو قانونی تحفظات کی خلاف ورزی کرتے ہوئے منفی طور پر تبدیل نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔

یہ دلیل کہ ملازمین نے VSS-2008 قبول کر کے رضاکارانہ طور پر پنشن کے حق سے دستبردار ہوئے، دفعہ 11A کے ساتھ اسکیم کی عدم مطابقت کی وجہ سے برقرار نہیں رہتی۔ اگرچہ دھوکہ دہی یا جبر ثابت نہیں ہوا (کنٹریکٹ ایکٹ کی دفعہ 14)، لیکن ملازمین اور آجر کے درمیان عدم مساوات—جہاں VSS کو “لے لو یا چھوڑ دو” کی بنیاد پر پیش کیا گیا، ملازمت ختم ہونے کے خوف کے ساتھ—دفعہ 16 کے تحت غیر متوقع اثر و رسوخ (undue influence) کے سوال اٹھاتی ہے۔ سپریم کورٹ نے علی اظہر خان بلوچ بمقابلہ صوبہ سندھ (2015 SCMR 456) میں قانونی تقاضوں کے منافی معاہداتی شرائط کو کالعدم قرار دیا، یہ کہتے ہوئے کہ “کوئی معاہدہ قانون کے مینڈیٹ کو نظرانداز نہیں کر سکتا۔”

عدالتی فیصلے اور جاری مقدمات

سپریم کورٹ کا 10 جولائی 2025 کا فیصلہ پی ٹی سی ایل کی پنشن ذمہ داری پر (ڈان نیوز میں رپورٹ کے مطابق) نے غیر VSS منتقل شدہ ملازمین کے لیے پنشن کی ذمہ داریوں کی توثیق کی لیکن VSS قبول کرنے والوں کو رضاکارانہ دستبرداری کے مفروضے کی بنیاد پر خارج کیا۔ تاہم، یہ غیر پنشن ایبل VSS-2008 کے معاملات کے لیے حتمی طور پر فیصلہ نہیں کرتا، کیونکہ اختلاف رائے اور نچلی عدالتوں کے ریمانڈز اس کی چیلنج کی گنجائش دیتے ہیں۔ مثال کے طور پر، مسز تسلیم فاطمہ بمقابلہ پی ٹی سی ایل (2022، سندھ ہائی کورٹ) میں عدالت نے سروس کی مدت اور پنشن کے حقوق کی دوبارہ جائزہ کے لیے مقدمات ریمانڈ کیے، پی ٹی سی ایل کی جانب سے محرومی کے جواز کے ثبوت کی کمی کو نوٹ کرتے ہوئے۔ اسی طرح، پی ٹی سی ایل بمقابلہ اقبال ناصر (PLD 2011 SC 132) میں سپریم کورٹ نے محفوظ سروس شرائط کو برقرار رکھا، یکطرفہ تبدیلیوں کو مسترد کرتے ہوئے۔ یہ مقدمات اشارہ دیتے ہیں کہ VSS-2008 کی پنشن سے محرومی کی شرائط غیر قانونی قرار دی جا سکتی ہیں۔

نتیجہ

سول سروینٹس ایکٹ 1973 کی دفعہ 11A کی روشنی میں، 10 سے 20 سال کوالیفائنگ سروس والے ملازمین کو پنشن سے محروم کرنے والا VSS-2008 ممکنہ طور پر غیر قانونی ہے، کیونکہ یہ زائد ملازمین کے لیے سازگار شرائط برقرار رکھنے کے مینڈیٹ کی خلاف ورزی کرتا ہے۔ VSS-1997-98 کا سابقہ نمونہ، جس نے پنشن کے حقوق محفوظ رکھے، اس نقطہ نظر کو تقویت دیتا ہے۔ دفعات 19 اور 36 کے تحت قانونی تحفظات اور پنشن کو حق کے طور پر تسلیم کرنے والے عدالتی فیصلے، کنٹریکٹ ایکٹ کی دفعہ 23 کے تحت پنشن سے محرومی کی شق کو باطل قرار دیتے ہیں۔ میں دفعہ 11A کے ساتھ VSS-2008 کی مطابقت کو مزید جانچنے کی ترغیب دیتا ہوں اور آپ کے پاس موجود کوئی مخصوص دستاویزات یا متضاد حوالوں کا جائزہ لینے کا خیرمقدم کرتا ہوں۔

نیک تمنائیں،

[محمد طارق اظہر]

جنرل منیجر(آپس) ریٹائیڑد پی ٹی سی ایل

 27-8-2025