Article-244[Special ARTICLE by AI ChatGPT]

 Special  ARTICLE by AI ChatGPT

Systematic Non-Compliance with the Supreme Court Judgment dated 10 July 2025 (C.A. No.1509 of 2021 etc.) — Pension Rights of Former T&T / PTCL Employees

Introduction

The judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 10 July 2025 in Civil Appeal No.1509 of 2021 and connected matters was intended to finally and conclusively settle the pension rights of former employees of the erstwhile Telegraph & Telephone (T&T) Department who subsequently served in PTCL.

The Court authoritatively clarified:

 • the legal test distinguishing a Civil Servant from a Workman

 • the protected nature of government-regulated pay and pension rights

 • the obligation of authorities to decide pension cases strictly under the governing Government rules

The judgment was therefore not advisory but binding, final, and enforceable under the Constitution.

Yet the post-judgment conduct of PTCL and the Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust (PTET) demonstrates a pattern of institutional delay, selective interpretation, and incomplete execution, effectively depriving pensioners of the relief granted by the Supreme Court.

1. Constitutional duty of full and faithful implementation

Under constitutional law:

 • Supreme Court judgments bind all executive and administrative authorities

 • No department may dilute, reinterpret, or postpone compliance

 • Financial burden cannot justify non-implementation

Compliance must therefore be:

✔ complete

✔ uniform

✔ time-bound

✔ consistent with the Court’s reasoning

Any implementation that is delayed, reduced, or selective amounts to legal non-compliance.

2. Evidence of partial implementation in pension fixation

In numerous cases affecting former T&T/PTCL employees:

 • Government-pattern pension has been fixed at incorrect or reduced levels

 • Statutory pension increases have been partially or wrongly applied

 • Arrears have been under-calculated or left unpaid

 • Implementation dates have been artificially postponed

 • Similar employees are being treated differently without lawful justification

Such actions defeat the object of the judgment and constitute administrative resistance to judicial enforcement.

3. Improper reliance on review petitions and procedural litigation

Instead of executing the judgment promptly, PTCL/PTET have reportedly filed multiple review petitions and procedural applications.

While the law allows review in exceptional circumstances, repeated filings used primarily to delay financial obligations undermine:

 • judicial finality

 • pensioners’ vested rights

 • the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court

Courts have consistently held that litigation cannot be used as a tool to postpone lawful pension payment.

4. Legally unsustainable classification of BPS-1 to BPS-16 employees as “workmen”

A central issue concerns the attempt to classify employees in BPS-1 to BPS-16 as workmen in order to deny Government pension.

This approach conflicts with the Supreme Court’s legal test.

The Court clarified that Civil Servant status depends upon:

 • protection of service conditions under Government rules

 • Government-controlled pay scales

 • statutory pension entitlement

 • continuity of protected service

Historically, T&T employees possessed all these characteristics.

Performance of technical, manual, or field duties does not transform a government servant into a workman.

A genuine workman:

 • serves under industrial labour contracts

 • lacks statutory pension protection

 • is governed by labour compensation regimes

Therefore, blanket classification of lower-grade employees as workmen is legally unsustainable.

5. Legal remedies available to affected pensioners

Where implementation is defective, pensioners retain enforceable legal rights to:

 • file execution petitions

 • seek High Court constitutional jurisdiction

 • initiate contempt proceedings for non-compliance

 • demand recalculation and full arrears

Pension is not charity but a vested statutory right earned through public service.

6. Human and administrative consequences

The continuing delay has imposed severe hardship on elderly pensioners dependent on timely pension for survival.

Administrative resistance:

 • increases litigation costs

 • burdens courts unnecessarily

 • weakens public trust in governance

 • prolongs suffering of retired employees

The Supreme Court judgment was intended to end such uncertainty, not perpetuate it.

Conclusion

True compliance with the Supreme Court judgment dated 10 July 2025 requires:

 • uniform determination of Civil Servant status using the Court’s legal test

 • correct fixation of Government pension

 • full calculation and payment of arrears

 • immediate cessation of obstructive litigation

Only strict, honest, and complete implementation can lawfully resolve the long-standing pension dispute affecting former T&T/PTCL employees.

ChatGPT