Article by ChatGPT regarding double negative role of PTET

 MTA 6

نوٹ: 

عزیز پی ٹی سی ایل پنشنرس ساتھیو

اسلام و علیکم

مجھے کچھ دن پہلے دوست اسد خان پی ٹی سی ایل پنشنر کی طرف سے واٹس ایپس پر GM PTET Farooq کی طرف سے26 فروری 2018 کو تحریر کردہ کاپی جو انکے والد مرحوم پیر مغل (جو سابقہ ٹی اینڈ میں گریڈ 4  کے ملازم تھے، ) موصول ھوئیئ جسمیں یہ بتایا گیا تھا عدالت کے 15 فروری 2018 احکامات کے تحت انکو کتنی رقم دی جائیگی ۔اسد صاحب نے مجھے بتایا کے والد مرحوم بھی ان 342  پی ٹی سی ایل پنشنرز پٹیشنر  میں شامل  تھے جنکو 15 فروری 2018 کے اس دو رکنی بینچ ممبرز کے حکم کے تحت گورمنٹ والی پنشن ملی۔  اسوقت آسا کوئی سوال ھی نھیں اٹھایا گیا عدالت کے سامنے کے جو ریس پونڈنٹ گریڈ 1 تا گریڈ 16  تک کے ھیں  وہ بطور ورکمین گورمنٹ پنشن لینے کا حقدار ھیں یا نھیں۔ PTET کے وکیل انور شاھد باجواہ کی اس یقین دہانی پر کے ماسوائے وی ایس ایس لیکر ریٹائیڑڈ۔ ھونے والوں کے PTET , سبکو  گورمنٹ کی اعلان کردہ ھی پنشن ادا کرے گی  تو عدالت نے ایسے سبکو  ماسوائے وی ایس ایس لینے کر ریٹائیڑڈ ھونے والوں  کے  ، تمام پنشنرز پٹیشنرز کو گورمنٹ کی اعلان کردہ  ھی پنشن  اور اسکے بقایا جات دن کے اندر کے اندر دینے کا حکم دیا ے اور اسطرح PTET نے ایسے 342 پنشنرز پٹیشنرز کو یہ گورمنٹ والی پنشن اور اور اسکے بقایا جات کئیےلیکن PTET اب 10 جولائی 2025  کے سپریم کوڑٹ کے حکم کے برخلاف صرف ان پی ٹی سی ایل پنشروں کو گورمنٹ کی اعلان کردہ پنشن اور اسکی بقایا جات ادا کردئیے جو فیڈرل پبلک سروس کا امتحان پاس کرکے ٹی اینڈ ٹی میں یکم جنوری 1991 سے پہلے بھرتی ھوئے  تھے ۔وہ یہ سمجھتے ھیں سول سرونٹ ایکٹ 1973 تحت بھرتی نہ ھونے والے ھی سول سرونٹ کے زمرے میں نھیں آتے ھیں ۔اور یہ سب ورکمین کی کٹیگری آتے ھیں اور اسلئیے گورمنٹ والی پنشن کے حقدار نھیں ھیں.

تو  PTET کا فروری کیا کردار تھا اور 10 جولائی 2025 کے عدالتی فیصلے میں انکا کیا کردار رھا۔مجھ کو اسد صاحب نے کہا کے میں انکے اس دوغلے کردار کے بارے میں آگاہی دوں  اور اس پر تبصرہ کریں۔میں نے اسلئیے AI ChatGPT کے زریعے یہ مندرجہ زیل آڑٹیکل تیار کیا جو اس نے میری ڈائیریکشن کے مطابق ھی بڑا اچھا بنایا۔آپ لوگ اس پر اپنی ضرور کے AI ChatGPT  طرف سے میری ھدایت پر  بنانے والا یہ ڈرافٹ کیسا ھے آپ لوگوں کی سمجھ میں آیا یا نھیں اگر نھیں تو اسکی وجہ کیا ھے

واسلام

)طارق)

Date 7th May 2026

                                 _______________________________

Article by ChatGPT[Regarding Legal Note for All PTCL Pensioners why the Supreme Court Order dated 15-02-2018 Cannot Be Used to Defeat the Pension Rights of PTCL Pensioners]

Dear PTCL Pensioner Colleagues,

A-o-A

The present conduct of PTET/PTCL requires serious legal examination. PTET is now attempting to create an artificial and unlawful distinction among transferred T&T/PTC/PTCL employees by saying that only those officers who were appointed in BPS-17 through the Federal Public Service Commission before 01-01-1991 are entitled to Government of Pakistan pension, while employees from BPS-1 to BPS-16 are allegedly “workmen” and not entitled to such pension. This position is legally defective, inconsistent, and contrary to the spirit and effect of the Supreme Court judgments.

Public reports of the Supreme Court judgment dated 10-07-2025 state that employees transferred from the former T&T Department to PTC and later to PTCL retained their protected pensionary rights, although they ceased to be civil servants after transfer. The judgment has also been reported as recognizing that pensionary benefits remained protected under the statutory framework.  

1. PTET’s Own Conduct in 2018 Contradicts Its Present Stand

In 2018, after the Supreme Court two-member Bench order dated 15-02-2018, PTET granted Government pension and Government pension increases to about 342 normally retired PTCL pensioner-petitioners. These pensioners included persons of different grades, including lower grades. PTET did not at that time raise any objection that employees of BPS-1 to BPS-16 were “workmen” and therefore excluded from Government pension.

This conduct is very important. If PTET truly believed that only FPSC-appointed BPS-17 officers were entitled to Government pension, then it should not have paid GoP pension to lower-grade retired petitioners in 2018. PTET’s present objection is therefore not a genuine legal interpretation; it appears to be a later device to restrict compliance after the judgment dated 10-07-2025.

2. The Order dated 15-02-2018 Was Not a Final Judgment on Merits

The order dated 15-02-2018 arose in contempt/compliance proceedings. Such an order could not legally amend, dilute, or override the earlier three-member Bench judgment dated 12-06-2015, reported as PTET v. Muhammad Arif, 2015 SCMR 1472.

The 2015 judgment was the main judgment on merits. The 2018 order, being passed by a smaller two-member Bench in compliance proceedings, could not create a new exclusion against VSS retirees or lower-grade employees. A smaller Bench cannot alter the ratio or operative command of a larger Bench.

Therefore, any reliance by PTET/PTCL on the 15-02-2018 order to exclude VSS retirees, lower-grade employees, or non-FPSC appointees is legally unsustainable.

3. The Role of PTET and Its Counsel Requires Serious Criticism

The role of PTET’s management, including GM PTET, and its counsel, Advocate Shahid Anwar Bajwa, appears highly objectionable if the 2018 proceedings were used to give partial benefit only to selected pensioners while excluding others without any final adjudication on merits.

If PTET’s counsel stated before the Court that PTET would pay Government pension only to normally retired petitioners and not to VSS retirees, such statement could not become law. A counsel’s statement cannot override statutory rights, nor can it defeat the binding effect of a larger Bench judgment.

PTET cannot use its own counsel’s limited statement as a weapon against thousands of pensioners. Such conduct is unfair, discriminatory, and contrary to the principle that similarly placed pensioners must be treated alike.

4. The “Workman” Objection Is Legally Defective

PTET’s present argument that only FPSC-appointed BPS-17 officers were civil servants and that all BPS-1 to BPS-16 employees were merely “workmen” is incorrect.

The real legal question is not whether every transferred employee remained a civil servant forever. The question is whether, at the time of transfer from T&T to PTC/PTCL, their pensionary rights were protected by statute. The Supreme Court’s reported 2025 decision has been described as holding that transferred employees retained protected pension benefits under the statutory framework.  

Therefore, PTET cannot create a new class by saying:

• BPS-17 FPSC appointees are entitled;

• BPS-1 to BPS-16 employees are excluded;

• VSS retirees are excluded;

• non-petitioners are excluded.

No such blanket exclusion exists in the main legal principle. Pension is attached to protected service rights, not merely to the mode of recruitment through FPSC.

5. PTET Cannot Blow Hot and Cold

PTET cannot take one position in 2018 and a completely opposite position in 2025–2026.

In 2018, PTET paid Government pension to normally retired petitioners of different grades without raising the “workman” objection. Now, after the 10-07-2025 judgment, PTET is attempting to restrict the benefit only to BPS-17 FPSC officers. This is a clear contradiction.

Such inconsistent conduct may amount to selective compliance, discrimination, and possible contempt if it defeats the true meaning of the Supreme Court’s judgments.

Final Conclusion

The order dated 15-02-2018 cannot legally be treated as a final judgment excluding VSS retirees, lower-grade employees, or non-FPSC appointees. It was at most a compliance/contempt order and could not modify the larger three-member Bench judgment dated 12-06-2015.

PTET’s present attempt to restrict GoP pension only to BPS-17 FPSC-appointed officers is legally weak, discriminatory, and contrary to its own past conduct. All transferred T&T/PTC/PTCL pensioners whose pensionary rights were statutorily protected have a strong legal basis to demand Government of Pakistan pension, annual increases, arrears, and equal treatment.

PTET/PTCL should immediately revise their position and implement the Supreme Court judgments in their true letter and spirit, instead of creating artificial classifications to deprive elderly pensioners and widows of their lawful rights.

Regards

[Tariq]

Date -07-05-2026