Article-274 [Regarding Harsher Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court Judgment dated 10 July 2025 – With Sharp Focus on PTCL’s Role]

*Article-274 [Regarding Harsher Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court Judgment dated 10 July 2025 – With Sharp Focus on PTCL’s Role] The Supreme Court’s 2-1 majority judgment of 10 July 2025 (headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi) was intended as a landmark victory for transferred T&T/PTC employees and pensioners. It declared their pensionary benefits as dynamic and evolving “living rights” and held that PTCL and PTET are jointly duty-bound to ensure full implementation. Yet, nearly ten months later, the verdict stands exposed as another instance of judicial optimism clashing with institutional defiance — and no entity bears greater responsibility for this failure than PTCL management itself. PTCL’s Deeply Problematic Role PTCL’s handling of the judgment reveals a persistent, calculated pattern of resistance rather than compliance. Immediately after the verdict, instead of embracing the Court’s clear directive to prepare a transparent disbursement schedule within 90 days, PTCL resorted to its familiar playbook: it announced the start of a “complex and time-consuming” pensioners’ data verification process. This exercise, framed as a necessary step, has effectively become a tool for indefinite delay. • Tactical Delay Through Verification: PTCL’s public statements to the Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) in mid-July 2025 emphasized “verifying data” and then sharing it with PTET for contribution calculations. What was promised as a diligent process has dragged on for months, leaving thousands of elderly pensioners in limbo. This is not mere administrative inefficiency; it is a deliberate strategy to exhaust pensioners financially and emotionally while minimizing immediate financial impact on the company. • Continued Adversarial Mindset: Despite the Supreme Court’s explicit rejection of the “master-servant” approach and its strong rebuke of using financial constraints as an excuse, PTCL management has shown little genuine shift in attitude. The company continues to treat these long-serving former T&T/PTC employees — many now in their 70s and 80s — as burdensome liabilities rather than individuals owed vested, statutorily protected rights. By dragging its feet on implementation, PTCL effectively undermines the rule of law and the spirit of the very statutes (Section 9 of the 1991 Act and Section 36 of the 1996 Act) that preserved these entitlements during corporatization and privatization. • Corporate Self-Interest Over Legal Obligation: As a privatized entity with commercial pressures and shareholder interests (including its partnership with Etisalat), PTCL prioritizes fiscal containment above all. While the Court rightly noted that financial unsustainability cannot override statutory duties, PTCL has used every procedural loophole — data verification, internal reviews, and coordination delays with PTET — to postpone the inevitable. This approach not only disrespects the apex court but also inflicts real hardship on pensioners who dedicated decades to building Pakistan’s telecommunications infrastructure. • Blame-Shifting with PTET: The dual structure of PTCL verifying data and PTET handling disbursements has conveniently allowed finger-pointing and further procrastination. Instead of acting as a facilitative mechanism, the PTCL-PTET arrangement has become yet another layer of obstruction, frustrating the very purpose for which PTET was established. Broader Implications of PTCL’s Conduct PTCL’s resistance perpetuates a cycle of prolonged litigation that has already spanned more than 12–15 years for many families. Elderly pensioners, who should be spending their twilight years in dignity, continue to face uncertainty, financial stress, and the humiliation of chasing their hard-earned dues through courts and bureaucratic mazes. The 2025 judgment, though flawed in its expansive interpretation (as powerfully pointed out in Justice Ayesha A. Malik’s dissent), at least provided a clear opportunity for closure. PTCL’s half-hearted, bureaucratic response has squandered that opportunity. By prioritizing short-term financial optics over ethical and legal accountability, PTCL management not only tarnishes its own corporate image but also erodes public trust in privatized state assets and the effectiveness of Pakistan’s highest court. The Harsh Reality The Supreme Court spoke with clarity: pension is a vested right, not charity, and PTCL cannot evade its obligations. Yet PTCL’s actions scream defiance — slow-walking compliance, hiding behind procedural complexities, and maintaining an adversarial posture against its own former workforce. This is not responsible corporate governance; it is institutional arrogance dressed as prudence. True respect for the rule of law demands swift, transparent, and full implementation — not endless verification exercises that serve as delay tactics. Until PTCL abandons its obstructive “master-servant” mentality and treats these pensioners with the dignity and urgency they deserve, the 2025 judgment risks becoming yet another unenforced judicial pronouncement, adding to the long list of disappointments for Pakistan’s retired public servants. Pensioners have waited long enough. PTCL must stop playing games with their lives and deliver justice — in letter and spirit — without further excuses or delay. Regards Tariq Date :27-4-2026