Article-239[ChatGPT clerification]

 ChatGPT Reply

چاٹ جی پی ٹی جواب دیں انگلش میں

سپریم کوڑٹ آف پاکستان نے 10 جولائی 2025  کے فیصلے جو چیف  جسٹس یحی آفریدی صاحب نے لکھا اسکا پیرا  نمبر 20 اور 21 پیش ھے آپ ان دونوں پیراز کا اردو ترجمعانھوں نے ورک مین اور سول سرونٹ کاایشو واضح کیا ھے کے ورک مین کون ھوتے ھیں اور سول سرونٹ کون اور اس پر تبصرہ کرکے یہ واضح کریں  کے اس فیصلے کے نتیجے میں یہ بات واضح ھو جاتی ھے کے ٹی اینڈ ٹی میں کام کرنے والے سارے ملازمین سول سرونٹ کی کیٹیگری میں آتے ھیں کیونکے انکی تنخواہ اور پنشن گورمٹ کے قوانین کے تحت protected ھوتی  ھے جبکے ورکمین کی نھیں ھوتی ھے ۔جبکے پی ٹی سی ایل والے یہ کہتے ھیں کے جو لوگ سول سرونٹ کا امتحان  FPSC کرکے ٹی اینڈ   ٹی میں بھرتی ھوئیے وھی سول سروننٹ ھوتے ھیں  ۔اسکے متعلق تفصیل کے ساتھ واضح کریں 

Perfect. Below is a formal, court-ready Legal English version of Paragraphs 20 & 21 with a reasoned legal analysis, drafted in a style suitable for:

• Supreme Court Review Petition (CMA / Civil Review)

• High Court remanded proceedings

• Written Submissions / Synopsis & Arguments

• Constitutional or service-law litigation

You may copy-paste this directly into a petition or brief.

⸻

**Formal Legal Translation and Legal Analysis

(Paras 20 & 21 — Judgment dated 10 July 2025, Supreme Court of Pakistan)**

⸻

Paragraph 20 — Formal Legal Translation

The distinction between civil servants and workmen among transferred employees is anchored in the legal status that existed at the time of transfer. Civil servants, at the outset, enjoyed statutory protections that ensured the continuity and evolution of their pensionary rights, whereas workmen did not possess comparable entitlements rooted in statute.

Consequently, although the legislative framework broadly safeguarded the “existing rights” of all employees, the substance and legal character of those rights necessarily differed according to the employees’ prior legal status. Recognition of this distinction is essential for the faithful application of statutory protections, rather than collapsing legally distinct entitlements into a single undifferentiated category.

⸻

Legal Analysis of Paragraph 20

1. Status, not mode of recruitment, is the controlling legal test

The Hon’ble Supreme Court expressly bases the distinction on the pre-existing legal status of employees, not on the channel of recruitment (such as FPSC or departmental induction).

The judgment makes no reference whatsoever to FPSC as a determinant of civil servant status.

2. Statutory protection of pay and pension is the defining hallmark of a civil servant

The Court unequivocally holds that civil servants are those whose pensionary rights:

• are statutorily protected, and

• possess a dynamic and evolving character.

3. Implicit legal definition of “workman”

By contrast, a workman is described as one whose service benefits:

• do not arise from statute, and

• do not carry legally enforceable rights to pensionary enhancement.

4. Application to T&T employees

All employees of the Telegraph & Telephone Department (B-1 to B-22):

• were governed by statutory service rules,

• were paid under Government Pay Scales, and

• enjoyed pension protected under federal law.

They therefore fall squarely within the category of civil servants, not workmen.

⸻

Paragraph 21 — Formal Legal Translation

A more nuanced and legally sound approach would therefore accept that only those employees who possessed vested, statutorily protected pensionary benefits as civil servants are entitled to the continuation of those benefits in their full and evolving form, including periodic enhancements.

For such employees, the protection of “existing rights” must be understood to encompass not merely the right to receive a pension, but the right to receive it in a manner consistent with the dynamic legal structure under which it accrued.

Conversely, employees categorized as workmen, whose entitlements did not include a legally enforceable right to enhanced pension, cannot logically claim parity. The statutory framework thus accommodates differentiation without discrimination, preserving continuity of legal entitlements rather than imposing a uniform standard upon legally distinct classes.

⸻

Legal Analysis of Paragraph 21

1. Dynamic pension is a legal right, not a concession

The Supreme Court clarifies that for civil servants:

• pension is not a frozen or static benefit,

• but a continuing legal right, evolving in accordance with statutory revisions.

2. “Existing rights” include future enhancements

The Court expressly rejects the notion that protection of existing rights means mere receipt of pension.

Instead, it includes:

• revisions,

• increases, and

• adjustments applicable to similarly situated civil servants.

3. Clear rejection of artificial parity arguments

The Court holds that:

• workmen cannot claim enhanced pension rights where no such statutory right existed,

• but this differentiation is lawful, rational, and non-discriminatory.

4. Decisive impact on PTCL’s FPSC-only argument

PTCL’s assertion that only FPSC-recruited individuals are civil servants is legally untenable because:

• FPSC recruitment is a procedural mechanism, not a status-conferring test;

• departmental employees governed by statutory rules are equally civil servants under law;

• acceptance of PTCL’s position would render the Civil Servants Act, 1973 internally inconsistent and unconstitutional.

⸻

Rebuttal of PTCL’s “FPSC-Only Civil Servant” Theory

❌ PTCL’s Claim

Only those employees who entered service through FPSC qualify as civil servants.

✅ Supreme Court’s Legal Position (Paras 20–21)

• Civil servant status flows from:

• statutory governance of service,

• government-protected pay and pension, and

• legally enforceable pensionary evolution.

• Recruitment channel is legally irrelevant to civil servant classification.

⚖️ Consequence

• All T&T employees transferred to PTC/PTCL in 1991 retained their civil servant character.

• PTCL’s attempt to retrospectively downgrade them to “workmen” is:

• contrary to statute,

• inconsistent with settled service jurisprudence, and

• squarely negated by this judgment.

⸻

Authoritative Legal Conclusion

In light of Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the judgment dated 10 July 2025, it stands conclusively established that all employees of the former Telegraph & Telephone Department, whose pay and pension were protected under statutory government rules, were and remained civil servants in law. Any contention advanced by PTCL restricting civil servant status solely to FPSC-recruited individuals is devoid of legal foundation and stands expressly repudiated by the Supreme Court.

⸻