Artical -269[ Regarding Landmark Judgment (10 July 2025)

*Article-269[ Regarding Landmark Judgment (10 July 2025) Here is a more detailed and structured 

overview of the key Supreme Court of Pakistan judgments concerning the pension and service rights of employees transferred from the erstwhile Telegraph & Telephone (T&T) Department to Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC) and subsequently to Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL). 1. Landmark 2025 Judgment (10 July 2025) • Case Title: Appeals relating to pension entitlement of ex-T&T/PTC employees transferred to PTCL (consolidated set of appeals against various High Court judgments). • Bench: Three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, with Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Ayesha A. Malik. • Decision: Majority 2-1 verdict (Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Aminuddin Khan in the majority; Justice Ayesha A. Malik dissented). • Key Holdings: • Employees transferred from T&T to PTC and then to PTCL retained their right to pensionary benefits. • These benefits are not frozen or static at the time of transfer but are dynamic and evolving rights (“living rights”). • Although these employees ceased to be civil servants after the transfer, the statutory framework fully safeguards their pension entitlements. • Pension must progress in accordance with the standards applicable to similarly situated public servants. • The Court relied heavily on Section 9 of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991 and Section 36 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996. • PTCL and the Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust (PTET) are duty-bound to ensure the full measure of these entitlements is met. • Financial constraints or “fiscal unsustainability” claimed by PTCL/PTET cannot override these statutory obligations. • The Court directed PTCL to prepare a schedule for pension payments within 90 days and ensure transparent disbursement. • Any interpretation that reduces these rights to discretionary or static payments is contrary to the legislative mandate.0 This judgment addressed a large number of consolidated appeals (reportedly over 200–250 petitions) and reaffirmed that the administrative mechanism (including PTET) was created to facilitate, not frustrate, the guaranteed rights of transferred employees. 2. Important Earlier Precedent: PTCL & others vs. Masood Ahmed Bhatti & others (2016 SCMR 1362) • Bench: Five-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali (review petitions). • Decision: The Supreme Court upheld its earlier verdict and dismissed the review petitions filed by PTCL management and PTET. • Key Holdings: • The terms and conditions of service (including pensionary benefits) of T&T departmental employees were given full legal protection at the time of transfer to the Corporation (1991) and later to PTCL after privatization (1996). • Sections 9(2) of the 1991 Act and 35(2)/36 of the 1996 Act protected these rights; they could not be varied to the disadvantage of the transferred employees. • The Federal Government was bound to guarantee the existing terms and conditions, including pension. • Even though the employees no longer remained civil servants, their service rights retained a statutory character and remained enforceable.8 This 2016 ruling has been consistently cited in subsequent High Court and Supreme Court cases as a binding precedent protecting the rights of transferred T&T/PTC employees. Summary of the Legal Position Established by the Supreme Court • Pension for these transferred employees is a vested, earned right — not a discretionary bounty. • It must be treated as a dynamic entitlement that evolves with government notifications for similarly placed public servants. • PTCL and PTET cannot adopt a narrow “master-servant” approach or use corporate/financial arguments to deny or delay full benefits. • Prolonged litigation by PTCL against its former employees and pensioners, despite repeated Supreme Court affirmations, amounts to disrespect for the rule of law and causes undue hardship to elderly retirees. Despite these clear and repeated directions from the apex court (particularly the 2016 and 2025 judgments), many reports indicate that implementation has been delayed, with PTCL often engaging in further verification processes or partial compliance only. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the spirit of the law requires full, timely, and respectful implementation of these protected rights rather than adversarial resistance through endless litigation. These judgments serve as strong authority for the transferred employees and pensioners to demand their legitimate dues without further delay. Regards Tariq Dated:29th April 2026