Article -260 [Regarding defective compliance report submitted by PTCL in HSCP]
Article-260
Note:- In compliance with the Supreme
Court’s July 10, 2025 judgment, the GM PTET has submitted a list of only 285 PTCL through compliance letter (Copy attached below) under the signature Executive Vice President legal Affairs PTC, that the pensioners who were deemed eligible for government pension who had passed the Federal Public Service Commission examination under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and were recruited in Grade 17 in T&T by December 1990. In the eyes of PTET, only these people will come under the category of civil servants, these people will be eligible for government pension, and no others. While there is no such order in the Supreme Court judgement of July 10, 2025 are contained in the said letter.
A question Why did the Supreme Court consider all employees working in T&T as civil servants? In his compliance report to the Supreme Court, he reproduced paragraph 24 of the decision written by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, i.e. to prove that his action is completely in accordance with paragraph 24 of the Supreme Court, while this paragraph 24 did not even say that it is proved that PTCL pensioners who passed the Federal Public Service Commission examination under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and were recruited in T&T before January 1, 1991, up to December 1990 in the erstwhile T&T department, are the only one entitled to receive government pension. They misinterpreted para 24 and sent a wrong compliance report and only those officers PTCL pensioners were considered civil servants and government pensioners who passed the FPS C exam and were recruited in grade 17 in 1990 before January 1, 1991 on its recommendation. Only these officers were considered by PTCL to be entitled to government pension. Which is completely against the Supreme Court's July 10, 2025 order. In my opinion, these people are committing contempt of court. In this regard, artificial intelligence AI ChatGPT
got it analyzed. Whether they are committing contempt of court or PTET is playing a negative role. So strict action should be taken against it. AI ChatGPT analyzed it and presented the report below. I request all of you to read it carefully and share your opinion. I will be grateful. Thanks
(Tariq)
Date 19-4-2026
ChatGPT Reply
Reasoned Legal Reply on the PTET/PTCL Compliance Report
In the light of the Supreme Court judgment dated 10-07-2025
“The compliance report filed by PTCL/PTET is not true compliance with the Supreme Court judgment dated 10-07-2025. It is an attempt to narrow and defeat the judgment by confining its benefit to only 285 persons on a criterion not found in paragraph 24 or elsewhere in the reproduced direction. The Supreme Court ordered transparent and equitable implementation of the rightful claims of affected pensioners; it did not authorize PTCL/PTET to create a new exclusionary class limited to FPSC-recruited Grade-17 officers appointed before 01-01-1991. Therefore, the report is liable to be challenged as misleading, discriminatory, contrary to the judgment, and potentially contumacious.”
The compliance report submitted on behalf of PTCL/PTET gives rise to serious legal concern. On its plain reading, it appears not merely to report compliance, but to redefine, restrict, and narrow the class of pensioners entitled to the benefit of the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 10 July 2025. That approach is highly questionable.
1. Core defect in the compliance report
The Supreme Court, in paragraph 24 reproduced by PTCL/PTET themselves, did not direct PTCL/PTET to create a new, self-serving classification limited only to those officers who:
• passed the FPSC examination,
• were recommended by FPSC,
• were appointed in Grade-17, and
• entered service before 01-01-1991.
What paragraph 24 actually says is materially different. It recognizes:
• the continuing financial liability of PTCL toward former civil servants,
• the obligation to reflect that liability in financial records,
• the duty to devise a feasible disbursement schedule within 90 days, and
• the requirement that the payment process remain transparent and equitable in addressing the rightful claims of the affected pensioners.
Nothing in the reproduced text authorizes PTCL/PTET to convert a compliance exercise into a fresh adjudication of status on a narrow administrative formula of their own creation.
2. Misreading of paragraph 24
The most striking feature of the report is that paragraph 24 has been reproduced, yet its actual language does not support the restrictive conclusion later adopted in the report.
Paragraph 24 does not say:
• that only FPSC-recruited Grade-17 officers are civil servants;
• that only pre-1991 Grade-17 appointees are entitled;
• that all other transferred employees stand excluded; or
• that PTCL/PTET may unilaterally determine who falls within the judgment by applying an internal “cut-off category”.
Instead, the judgment language points toward implementation, not re-litigation. The report therefore appears to move beyond compliance and into curtailment.
3. The unlawful narrowing of “former civil servants”
The expression “former civil servants” cannot fairly be reduced, by executive interpretation, to only one small class of officers. Your objection is legally weighty because the report appears to assume that:
• only those recruited through FPSC in Grade-17 before January 1991 are civil servants; and
• everyone else from the former Telegraph & Telephone Department is outside the protected category.
That is a deeply controversial and legally fragile position.
If the service of employees in T&T was governed by statutory rules, government pay scales, pension structure, and protected transfer arrangements under the governing statutes, then PTCL/PTET cannot lawfully erase that status merely by producing an internal committee report. A compliance report is not a judicial decree. It cannot substitute the Supreme Court’s reasoning with PTET’s own preferred eligibility formula.
4. The “Committee” could not override the judgment
The report says that a joint committee of PTCL and PTET reviewed internal records and concluded that only 285 pensioners qualify as civil servants. That statement is problematic for several reasons.
First, a committee created by the judgment for implementation purposes cannot lawfully assume the role of a court of final determination on disputed legal status.
Second, internal scrutiny of records cannot override statutory protections or judicial findings.
Third, if the committee adopted a criterion narrower than the judgment, then the committee acted beyond the legitimate scope of implementation.
In other words, PTCL/PTET were expected to implement the Supreme Court judgment, not to rewrite it.
5. Transparency and equity have not been observed
The Supreme Court expressly required that the payment process remain transparent and equitable. Yet the reported exercise appears to be the opposite:
• no transparent legal standard has been disclosed beyond an asserted committee conclusion;
• no reasons appear to have been given for excluding other similarly placed pensioners;
• no equal treatment appears to have been afforded to the broader class of transferred T&T/PTC/PTCL pensioners; and
• the report seems to benefit one limited category while leaving the rest to uncertainty.
A process cannot be called transparent if the decisive legal criterion is neither found in the judgment nor communicated with defensible legal reasoning.
A process cannot be called equitable if similarly placed persons are excluded by an internally manufactured distinction.
6. Apparent attempt to dilute the effect of the Supreme Court judgment
The report gives the impression that PTCL/PTET have attempted to confine the benefit of the judgment to a manageable number of pensioners rather than implement it in its true legal scope.
That is especially serious because paragraph 24 itself rejects the plea that financial difficulty can defeat statutory obligations. The Court expressly stated that if the pension model is financially unsustainable, the model must be recalibrated; the statutory entitlements cannot be curtailed.
Therefore, any attempt to reduce the number of entitled pensioners merely to lessen financial exposure would run contrary to the very reasoning reproduced in the report.
7. Why the conduct may amount to defiance in substance
On the material you have provided, the conduct appears capable of being characterized as:
• selective compliance,
• partial compliance,
• colourable compliance, or
• compliance in form but not in substance.
That is a serious matter.
A court generally looks not only at whether a document titled “compliance report” was filed, but whether the party has honestly, faithfully, and substantially carried out the command of the judgment. Under Pakistani law, contempt concerns disobedience or disregard of a court order that a person is legally bound to obey, and civil contempt proceedings may be invoked to enforce compliance of judgments and orders.
Accordingly, if PTCL/PTET knowingly restricted the judgment through a criterion not contained in the judgment itself, such conduct may expose the responsible officers to contempt consequences. Whether contempt is ultimately made out is for the Court to determine, and ordinarily the question turns on whether the disobedience was deliberate, wilful, and without lawful justification.
8. Filing further proceedings does not justify self-help non-compliance
My concern that CRPs or other further proceedings may have been filed merely to delay payment is understandable. In principle, a party cannot treat the judgment as suspended merely because it is dissatisfied with it. Unless there is an express judicial order granting protection or stay, the obligation to comply remains. On the facts as I have described them, filing further proceedings cannot by itself legitimize a restrictive or withholding implementation.
9. The 285-person limitation is legally vulnerable
The figure of 285 pensioners appears highly vulnerable because it seems to rest on an exclusionary assumption that has not been shown to come from the Supreme Court judgment itself.
If other transferred PTCL pensioners were similarly situated in law but were excluded only because they were:
• not Grade-17 officers,
• not FPSC recruits,
• not appointed before the selected cut-off in the manner preferred by PTET, or
• otherwise inconvenient to include,
then the classification may be attacked as arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to the judgment, and contrary to the statutory protection of accrued pensionary rights.
10. Proper legal characterization of PTET’s role
On my version and on the text of the report, PTET’s role appears not neutral but adversarial. Instead of acting as a fiduciary or implementing body for pension disbursement, it appears to have acted as a filtering authority designed to minimize liability. That conduct, if established, would strongly support the argument that PTET has not implemented the judgment in good faith.
The Court may therefore be asked to examine:
• who formulated the 285-person criterion,
• under what legal authority it was adopted,
• whether the excluded pensioners were given reasons,
• whether any judicial direction authorized this restrictive classification,
• whether the committee minutes and record support the exclusion, and
• whether the report amounts to misinterpretation of the judgment.
11. Strong conclusion
In my reasoned view, the compliance report, as reproduced in the attached pages, is prima facie defective, restrictive, and legally unsatisfactory. It appears to misread paragraph 24, narrow the scope of the Supreme Court’s judgment, and introduce a classification that the Court itself did not direct.
Therefore, the conduct complained of may properly be described as:
• misinterpretation of the Supreme Court judgment,
• attempted curtailment of rightful pension claims,
• non-transparent and inequitable implementation, and
• possible wilful disobedience in substance, subject to the Court’s final determination.
If this position is maintained despite notice, clarification, and opportunity to correct the report, the matter could become fit for strict judicial action, including a prayer for:
• withdrawal or rejection of the defective compliance report,
• submission of a fresh and lawful compliance report,
• extension of benefit to all similarly placed rightful pensioners,
• disclosure of the committee record and exclusion criteria, and
• initiation of contempt proceedings against the responsible officers for deliberate misimplementation of the Supreme Court’s judgment.
My Opinion
“The compliance report filed by PTCL/PTET is not true compliance with the Supreme Court judgment dated 10-07-2025. It is an attempt to narrow and defeat the judgment by confining its benefit to only 285 persons on a criterion not found in paragraph 24 or elsewhere in the reproduced direction. The Supreme Court ordered transparent and equitable implementation of the rightful claims of affected pensioners; it did not authorize PTCL/PTET to create a new exclusionary class limited to FPSC-recruited Grade-17 officers appointed before 01-01-1991. Therefore, the report is liable to be challenged as misleading, discriminatory, contrary to the judgment, and potentially contumacious.”
Regards
Muhammad Tariq Azhar
PTCL Pensioners/Retired General Manager (B19) PTCL
Note:- In compliance with the Supreme
Court’s July 10, 2025 judgment, the GM PTET has submitted a list of only 285 PTCL through compliance letter (Copy attached below) under the signature Executive Vice President legal Affairs PTC, that the pensioners who were deemed eligible for government pension who had passed the Federal Public Service Commission examination under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and were recruited in Grade 17 in T&T by December 1990. In the eyes of PTET, only these people will come under the category of civil servants, these people will be eligible for government pension, and no others. While there is no such order in the Supreme Court judgement of July 10, 2025 are contained in the said letter.
A question Why did the Supreme Court consider all employees working in T&T as civil servants? In his compliance report to the Supreme Court, he reproduced paragraph 24 of the decision written by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, i.e. to prove that his action is completely in accordance with paragraph 24 of the Supreme Court, while this paragraph 24 did not even say that it is proved that PTCL pensioners who passed the Federal Public Service Commission examination under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and were recruited in T&T before January 1, 1991, up to December 1990 in the erstwhile T&T department, are the only one entitled to receive government pension. They misinterpreted para 24 and sent a wrong compliance report and only those officers PTCL pensioners were considered civil servants and government pensioners who passed the FPS C exam and were recruited in grade 17 in 1990 before January 1, 1991 on its recommendation. Only these officers were considered by PTCL to be entitled to government pension. Which is completely against the Supreme Court's July 10, 2025 order. In my opinion, these people are committing contempt of court. In this regard, artificial intelligence AI ChatGPT
got it analyzed. Whether they are committing contempt of court or PTET is playing a negative role. So strict action should be taken against it. AI ChatGPT analyzed it and presented the report below. I request all of you to read it carefully and share your opinion. I will be grateful. Thanks
(Tariq)
Date 19-4-2026
ChatGPT Reply
Reasoned Legal Reply on the PTET/PTCL Compliance Report
In the light of the Supreme Court judgment dated 10-07-2025
“The compliance report filed by PTCL/PTET is not true compliance with the Supreme Court judgment dated 10-07-2025. It is an attempt to narrow and defeat the judgment by confining its benefit to only 285 persons on a criterion not found in paragraph 24 or elsewhere in the reproduced direction. The Supreme Court ordered transparent and equitable implementation of the rightful claims of affected pensioners; it did not authorize PTCL/PTET to create a new exclusionary class limited to FPSC-recruited Grade-17 officers appointed before 01-01-1991. Therefore, the report is liable to be challenged as misleading, discriminatory, contrary to the judgment, and potentially contumacious.”
The compliance report submitted on behalf of PTCL/PTET gives rise to serious legal concern. On its plain reading, it appears not merely to report compliance, but to redefine, restrict, and narrow the class of pensioners entitled to the benefit of the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 10 July 2025. That approach is highly questionable.
1. Core defect in the compliance report
The Supreme Court, in paragraph 24 reproduced by PTCL/PTET themselves, did not direct PTCL/PTET to create a new, self-serving classification limited only to those officers who:
• passed the FPSC examination,
• were recommended by FPSC,
• were appointed in Grade-17, and
• entered service before 01-01-1991.
What paragraph 24 actually says is materially different. It recognizes:
• the continuing financial liability of PTCL toward former civil servants,
• the obligation to reflect that liability in financial records,
• the duty to devise a feasible disbursement schedule within 90 days, and
• the requirement that the payment process remain transparent and equitable in addressing the rightful claims of the affected pensioners.
Nothing in the reproduced text authorizes PTCL/PTET to convert a compliance exercise into a fresh adjudication of status on a narrow administrative formula of their own creation.
2. Misreading of paragraph 24
The most striking feature of the report is that paragraph 24 has been reproduced, yet its actual language does not support the restrictive conclusion later adopted in the report.
Paragraph 24 does not say:
• that only FPSC-recruited Grade-17 officers are civil servants;
• that only pre-1991 Grade-17 appointees are entitled;
• that all other transferred employees stand excluded; or
• that PTCL/PTET may unilaterally determine who falls within the judgment by applying an internal “cut-off category”.
Instead, the judgment language points toward implementation, not re-litigation. The report therefore appears to move beyond compliance and into curtailment.
3. The unlawful narrowing of “former civil servants”
The expression “former civil servants” cannot fairly be reduced, by executive interpretation, to only one small class of officers. Your objection is legally weighty because the report appears to assume that:
• only those recruited through FPSC in Grade-17 before January 1991 are civil servants; and
• everyone else from the former Telegraph & Telephone Department is outside the protected category.
That is a deeply controversial and legally fragile position.
If the service of employees in T&T was governed by statutory rules, government pay scales, pension structure, and protected transfer arrangements under the governing statutes, then PTCL/PTET cannot lawfully erase that status merely by producing an internal committee report. A compliance report is not a judicial decree. It cannot substitute the Supreme Court’s reasoning with PTET’s own preferred eligibility formula.
4. The “Committee” could not override the judgment
The report says that a joint committee of PTCL and PTET reviewed internal records and concluded that only 285 pensioners qualify as civil servants. That statement is problematic for several reasons.
First, a committee created by the judgment for implementation purposes cannot lawfully assume the role of a court of final determination on disputed legal status.
Second, internal scrutiny of records cannot override statutory protections or judicial findings.
Third, if the committee adopted a criterion narrower than the judgment, then the committee acted beyond the legitimate scope of implementation.
In other words, PTCL/PTET were expected to implement the Supreme Court judgment, not to rewrite it.
5. Transparency and equity have not been observed
The Supreme Court expressly required that the payment process remain transparent and equitable. Yet the reported exercise appears to be the opposite:
• no transparent legal standard has been disclosed beyond an asserted committee conclusion;
• no reasons appear to have been given for excluding other similarly placed pensioners;
• no equal treatment appears to have been afforded to the broader class of transferred T&T/PTC/PTCL pensioners; and
• the report seems to benefit one limited category while leaving the rest to uncertainty.
A process cannot be called transparent if the decisive legal criterion is neither found in the judgment nor communicated with defensible legal reasoning.
A process cannot be called equitable if similarly placed persons are excluded by an internally manufactured distinction.
6. Apparent attempt to dilute the effect of the Supreme Court judgment
The report gives the impression that PTCL/PTET have attempted to confine the benefit of the judgment to a manageable number of pensioners rather than implement it in its true legal scope.
That is especially serious because paragraph 24 itself rejects the plea that financial difficulty can defeat statutory obligations. The Court expressly stated that if the pension model is financially unsustainable, the model must be recalibrated; the statutory entitlements cannot be curtailed.
Therefore, any attempt to reduce the number of entitled pensioners merely to lessen financial exposure would run contrary to the very reasoning reproduced in the report.
7. Why the conduct may amount to defiance in substance
On the material you have provided, the conduct appears capable of being characterized as:
• selective compliance,
• partial compliance,
• colourable compliance, or
• compliance in form but not in substance.
That is a serious matter.
A court generally looks not only at whether a document titled “compliance report” was filed, but whether the party has honestly, faithfully, and substantially carried out the command of the judgment. Under Pakistani law, contempt concerns disobedience or disregard of a court order that a person is legally bound to obey, and civil contempt proceedings may be invoked to enforce compliance of judgments and orders.
Accordingly, if PTCL/PTET knowingly restricted the judgment through a criterion not contained in the judgment itself, such conduct may expose the responsible officers to contempt consequences. Whether contempt is ultimately made out is for the Court to determine, and ordinarily the question turns on whether the disobedience was deliberate, wilful, and without lawful justification.
8. Filing further proceedings does not justify self-help non-compliance
My concern that CRPs or other further proceedings may have been filed merely to delay payment is understandable. In principle, a party cannot treat the judgment as suspended merely because it is dissatisfied with it. Unless there is an express judicial order granting protection or stay, the obligation to comply remains. On the facts as I have described them, filing further proceedings cannot by itself legitimize a restrictive or withholding implementation.
9. The 285-person limitation is legally vulnerable
The figure of 285 pensioners appears highly vulnerable because it seems to rest on an exclusionary assumption that has not been shown to come from the Supreme Court judgment itself.
If other transferred PTCL pensioners were similarly situated in law but were excluded only because they were:
• not Grade-17 officers,
• not FPSC recruits,
• not appointed before the selected cut-off in the manner preferred by PTET, or
• otherwise inconvenient to include,
then the classification may be attacked as arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to the judgment, and contrary to the statutory protection of accrued pensionary rights.
10. Proper legal characterization of PTET’s role
On my version and on the text of the report, PTET’s role appears not neutral but adversarial. Instead of acting as a fiduciary or implementing body for pension disbursement, it appears to have acted as a filtering authority designed to minimize liability. That conduct, if established, would strongly support the argument that PTET has not implemented the judgment in good faith.
The Court may therefore be asked to examine:
• who formulated the 285-person criterion,
• under what legal authority it was adopted,
• whether the excluded pensioners were given reasons,
• whether any judicial direction authorized this restrictive classification,
• whether the committee minutes and record support the exclusion, and
• whether the report amounts to misinterpretation of the judgment.
11. Strong conclusion
In my reasoned view, the compliance report, as reproduced in the attached pages, is prima facie defective, restrictive, and legally unsatisfactory. It appears to misread paragraph 24, narrow the scope of the Supreme Court’s judgment, and introduce a classification that the Court itself did not direct.
Therefore, the conduct complained of may properly be described as:
• misinterpretation of the Supreme Court judgment,
• attempted curtailment of rightful pension claims,
• non-transparent and inequitable implementation, and
• possible wilful disobedience in substance, subject to the Court’s final determination.
If this position is maintained despite notice, clarification, and opportunity to correct the report, the matter could become fit for strict judicial action, including a prayer for:
• withdrawal or rejection of the defective compliance report,
• submission of a fresh and lawful compliance report,
• extension of benefit to all similarly placed rightful pensioners,
• disclosure of the committee record and exclusion criteria, and
• initiation of contempt proceedings against the responsible officers for deliberate misimplementation of the Supreme Court’s judgment.
My Opinion
“The compliance report filed by PTCL/PTET is not true compliance with the Supreme Court judgment dated 10-07-2025. It is an attempt to narrow and defeat the judgment by confining its benefit to only 285 persons on a criterion not found in paragraph 24 or elsewhere in the reproduced direction. The Supreme Court ordered transparent and equitable implementation of the rightful claims of affected pensioners; it did not authorize PTCL/PTET to create a new exclusionary class limited to FPSC-recruited Grade-17 officers appointed before 01-01-1991. Therefore, the report is liable to be challenged as misleading, discriminatory, contrary to the judgment, and potentially contumacious.”
Regards
Muhammad Tariq Azhar
PTCL Pensioners/Retired General Manager (B19) PTCL
Comments