Article-233 [Regarding Defence Reply of CRP-97/2025 by Google Gemini]

To Google Gemini 

جو  سول رویو  پٹیشن انھوں نے دیا  ھمارے وکیل کو کیا ڈیفنس رپلائ  کرنا اور اسکو ڈسمس کرنے کرنے کا کہا جائے۔اسکی یہ تشریح انگلش میں جنریٹ کریں

جواب

آپ کا سوال قانونی نوعیت کا ہے اور اس میں قانونی دفاع (Legal Defense) اور جواب (Reply) کی حکمت عملی درکار ہے۔ ایک AI اسسٹنٹ کے طور پر، میں آپ کے وکیل کی جگہ نہیں لے سکتا اور نہ ہی براہ راست قانونی مشورہ دے سکتا ہوں۔ قانونی دفاع کی حتمی حکمت عملی صرف آپ کے وکیل ہی تیار کر سکتے ہیں جو مقدمے کے تمام حقائق، سابقہ فیصلوں اور متعلقہ قانون سے پوری طرح واقف ہیں۔

تاہم، میں سول ریویو پٹیشن (PTET/497/2025) کے خلاف جواب (Defense Reply) کی تیاری کے لیے ایک عمومی فریم ورک (General Framework) فراہم کر سکتا ہوں اور ان دلائل کو انگریزی میں پیش کر سکتا ہوں جو اس ریویو پٹیشن کو مسترد (Dismiss) کرنے کے لیے استعمال کیے جا سکتے ہیں۔

🛡️ Suggested Defense Reply Strategy (Dismissal of Review Petition)

This response outlines the strategic points your lawyer may use to argue against and dismiss the Review Petition filed by PTET.

I. General Strategy: Challenge the Maintainability of the Review

The primary strategy is to argue that the Review Petition is not maintainable under Article 188 of the Constitution and Order XXVI, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.

II. Core English Arguments for Dismissal

Here are the key arguments that should be structured in the defense reply to counter PTET's grounds:

1. No "Error Apparent on the Face of the Record"

The fundamental ground for review is a "mistake or error apparent on the face of the record." The defense must argue that PTET's petition fails this test.

>  * Argument 1.1: "The Review Petition merely seeks to re-argue the case and re-agitate issues that have already been thoroughly considered and settled by this Honourable Court in the Impugned Judgment. This constitutes a misuse of the review jurisdiction, which is not an avenue for a second appeal."

>  * Argument 1.2: "The judgment sought to be reviewed is a well-reasoned and detailed finding on the interpretation of the PTET Act and the rights of the employees. No manifest or glaring error exists on the face of the record; rather, the Petitioner (PTET) is attempting to challenge a legal conclusion that went against them."

> 

2. Rebuttal of Misinterpretation of Law (PTET Act)

PTET argues the Court misinterpreted the PTET Act, especially Sections 36 and 46. The defense should affirm the Court's original interpretation.

>  * Argument 2.1 (Affirming Section 36): "The Court's interpretation of Section 36 is correct, as it clearly mandates the protection of the terms and conditions of service for the employees transferred from T&T to PTCL. The Court rightly held that these benefits, including pension, cannot be diluted by subsequent actions or rules made by the Trust."

>  * Argument 2.2 (Challenging Financial Autonomy): "PTET's claim of 'financial and administrative autonomy' is subservient to the statutory protection of employees' rights guaranteed by Section 36 of the Act. The Trust was specifically constituted to manage these vested benefits, not to unilaterally alter them or refuse payment based on an interpretation of its own 'autonomy'."

> 

3. Challenging the Distinction Between Employee Categories

PTET argues the Court erred by lumping different categories of employees (Civil Servants, Workers, VSS Opt-ees) together.

>  * Argument 3.1: "The classification now being introduced by PTET is an attempt to retrospectively deny benefits to specific groups. The Honourable Court rightly pronounced a unified benefit structure for those employees whose rights were protected under the same parent statute (the Act of 1996)."

>  * Argument 3.2: "Specifically regarding VSS Opt-ees and other categories, the determination of their eligibility was correctly addressed based on established legal precedents. The petition fails to point out a specific error of law, but merely repeats a disagreement with the finding of fact or law."

> 

4. Rebuttal of the "New Principle" Allegation

PTET claims the Court introduced new principles not argued before the High Court.

>  * Argument 4.1: "The Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, is entitled to interpret the relevant statutes and legal instruments to do complete justice. The judgment did not create 'new principles' but applied the established principles of statutory interpretation and vested rights protection to the facts of the case."

> 

III. Conclusion and Prayer

The defense reply should conclude with a strong statement and a clear prayer for dismissal.

> Conclusion: "In light of the foregoing, the Review Petition is devoid of any substance and fails to meet the stringent criteria for invoking the review jurisdiction of this Honourable Court."

> 

> PRAYER:

>  * "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to dismiss the instant Civil Review Petition No. 497/2025 with heavy costs, as it is a frivolous attempt to reopen concluded proceedings."

>  * "Consequently, the Impugned Judgment dated 10.07.2025 may be upheld and executed as originally directed."

> 

Next Step for You:

براہ کرم یہ تمام نکات اپنے وکیل کو فراہم کریں تاکہ وہ ان دلائل کو قانونی زبان اور مقدمے کے تمام حقائق کی روشنی میں ایک مضبوط اور باضابطہ جواب (Formal Reply/Pleading) میں ڈھال سکیں۔