You are on page 1of 15


C.P. Nos. 1336120i.1 & ,112/2018

r-.1'. No. 1336i2017

.,\si,ril lvlalrnood s/o l\'iuitann::iij Aklar:i caste Rlli.t. rio Ij. No, 153-0L1, Samungli
Housing Scheme. Quc{ta. ......Petitioner


1. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Informaticn -{'cch16rleg1,,

Gnvernment of Pakistan. Pakistan Secretariat Islanaabad, etc. & another.
. ..,.Rtrspondents


C.P. No.4i2l?018

lmran Aziz, slo Aziz rir Rehman, caste Yousafzai, r/o I-{. No. 34-35iA, }}hase-ll,
Shahbaz Tou'n, Samringli Road, Quetta .....petitioner


1' Federation of Pakistan through Secrelary. Mrnistry of Informalion Technologr,,

Government of Pakistan Secretariat Islamabad etc. 2. pakistan
Telecommunication company Limited through its president prcl-. prct. I{earJ
Quarter G-Sl4,Islamabad 3. General Manager HR, cliftou Exchange Karachi.


Date'of hearing: 13-12-2018 Annonnced on 2Lr.ill.20t 9.

lUConstitutionat P

l)t-li1rlnr'r hy X4/L$ysd_AlrlarHusdaisZaidr. _!,lasoo! Alrl:d

Eltirlr-lelg q q,tryq r 4[d_\1 uh ar].ql,Q.ct_! e]-ejlr

Responcient No.2 by: M/s. Sjlqb@ancl S:rlman

Zalu, Adys?slgs.

; qinii'i-r re s po ncl cr rt
-\'i-,-\\ General
rx M/s, Syed Ansar llussain Zaidi. Masood Ahrned
Bhatti. Farooq Anw'ar and Muba$lnad Saleem
Ansari. Adyocates.

No.2 & 3 by: M/s. Shahid Anwar Baiwa Adnan Eiaz and
Satman ZaAr. Advoc*er

O{llciai resnondcnt bv Mr,r\U-d-qUdr_$A!S$AL_Dg1l_ut ] _i\!!a ntgy

Cicser al
ffiffil r''
re L.l'. N0s. l33b!lUl'/ & .llll2ulE

Muhammad Eiaz Swati. .J.- Since both the Petitions relate io sarne facts and law,

therefore, are being disposed of through this common judgment.

The Telecommunications in Pakistan were being run by tire pariistan

& Telephone (T&T) Department of Federai Gor,ernment of pakistan.

ffi The T&T Depafiment was converted into Pakistan Telecornmunication
li Corporation (Pl'C) by the Act of Parliament i.e. Pakistan Telecommr-rnication Act
1 99 1 (the Act 1 99 1 ), which was prornulgated to establish Pakistan

Telecommunication Corporation (PTC) and published in the Gazette of pakistan,

Extra-Ordinary Part 1 on November 27. 1991. Section 9 of the Act. 1991

stipulates that al1 the departmenial employees shall, on the establishment of the

corporation stand translerred to, and became employees oi'the corporation on the

same tems and conditions, to which they rvere directly before srich transfer. The

function of lhc corporation is to establish. n-raintain and operate

Teleoornniunicettion .with transfer of assets ernplovees of the T&T Department to

the Corporation. Sections 9(1), (2) & (3) of the Act l99l prov ide as under:

"0) Notwithstanding anything contained in any \a\t,. t:ontroct or

agreement, or in the conditions of services, ull dcpartrnental
employees shall, on the establishment of the Corporation, stand
transferred to, crnd become employees of the Corporcttion, on Lhe

same lerms and conditions tct which ty'tey vtere entitled inntetlicttely

before such lransfer, profided ilut the Corporation shcll be

compelent to take disciplinary action agoinst any such entplo4,ee.
(2) The lerms qnd condilions of-service o.f any suclt person os is
referred to in sub-,section (l) sholl not be yariecl by the
Corporation to his disadvantqges.
(3) Notu,ithstanding cml,tlting containt:d in any law Jbr the titttc
being in force, no person shull stands transJbrrecl to lhe
(iorporation by ttirttte oJ sub-section ('1) .shalt be entitled lo trr\.

the departmental employees as

"Depcu'tmental cmployee,s" meuns' employees belonging to the

Paki,slan 7'elegraph and Telephone Department ancl include-r
emplo-v"ees t'-f the said Department who mcLy, /br the time being, be

scrtirill itt othat organizttlions, but does' no! include ntenthcrs oJ'the
C.P. \-os. l336l20li rt 412/20,l8

occoLrlts group ot' group or other employees of external

organizutions vt,ho ma), be serving in the suid Department. "

Section 8 of the Act, 1991 states abor.rt the employment of the officers,

sel'vants, experts and their tenns and conditions of service as under:

"Olficers antJ servants.---(t) The (lorporation ntay fi.onr titne to

tinte employ such fficers and servan{s and appoint such experts or
consultan.ts, as it may consider necesscn'y.fbr the petforntunce oJ it.t

fttnctions, on such ternts and conditions as it nn\, deem Jit

uppointnlent of its oJJicers. seryants, experls and con.nllcrnls, crncl

the terms und conditions of their service, ''

3. After above. the Pakistan Telecommunication (rte-organizatiori) Act 1996

(the Act, 1996) was promulgated r-rnder section 2 (d) ol the Act 1996. u,

dellned the company to be the Pakistan T'elecommunication Company Lrmited

(PTCL). Section 2(s)(t) of rhe Act, 1996 defines rhe Telecommunicarion

Emplovees as under:

"teleconutn.ltication employees" tneent /he entployees oJ fhe

Corporation trho are tran.sferred tct the entployn.tent of the
Company under lhis Act, other thqn Ihose to tt,Ltom sub-section (3)

, of scction 36 applies, and all persons,v,ho, on tlrc elfectit,e dutefor

lhe Compun,v w-ere emplovees o.f the Corporalion tl.te .former

Telegraph and Corporatiotn Dcparhnent oj' the FerJercl
Govern,teni and are receiving or qre entirlecl to rec:eit,e
pensionary benefits from the Corporction. "

section 35 o1'the Act, 1996 deals rvith vesting of the rights, property ancl

liabilities of the Corporation to the Conrp.rny. Sub section (2) of section 35 deals

fbr of the empioyees of the Corporation and Company as r"tnder section

Kjyry Act of 1996 settled the tcrrns and conditions ol 1he transferred
tr{< Cornpanl, as rmder:

bjecl to sub-,section (3), the Ierm,,r antl contlilitttts of sert,ice

k\ y Trctnsferred l)mployee shall not be altered

aclverseb, by the

except in ctccordqnce tyilh the latrs oJ Pakistan or v,illt

llte consenl of' the Transfcrrecl EnzpLoltee,s antl the av'ctrcl of

appr opr i a t e c otnpen s at i on. "
C.P. \os. 1i3612017 & 112/2.tJl8

4. The petitioner Asa(-i Mehnrot:cl (in C.P. No.1336 of 20Ii) w'as appointed

as Jlrnior Accounts clerk (JAC) (BPS-5) on probation for a period of one year
.,v.e.L 31'1 December 1991 in PfC by the General I\4anager, Western Telecom

Regiot" Qr,retta. l-le n'as posted an Accounts officer Telephone Revenue. Khuzdar

a;rd at present, he is working as Accounts Officer (BPS-17).

5. The petitioner Imran Azizlin C.P. No.412 of 2018) r,vas employed in'f&T
Department. of'fice of the Government N4anagemerlt western Telecom Region, as

Junic'r Accor.rnts clerk (JAC) on 1111' Decenber 1988 and at present he is r,vor.king

as Rer,'euue Olficer (RO) (BPS-17).

6. The petitioners cjaimed reliel'wjlh regard to increase in pav aricl pension

eqr"ral to civil servants {iom time to time announced b)' the Fc..Jerai Government

and their promotions, transfers as well as status under which thev ar.e to be

proceeded with for disciplinary proceedings b.v the Department.

7 . Learned coltnsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners rvere

appointed in the erstwhile T&T Department, r.r,,l-rich rvas converted into llrC by

the Act of the Parliament i.e. Act, i99i and Section 9 of the said Act. 1991

stipulates that all the depattmental employees slrall. on the establishment ol the

corporalion stand transfened to, anci became employees of the Corporation on the

sarne terms and conrlitions, to which th.1' *."r" before such transf-er; that under

section 35 (2) and section i6 of tire Act. 1996. the terms ancl co*ditions ol
service of any emplo;,ss of the company had further been pr-otected and the

company coulcl uot vary the terms and conditions of service of any errployee to

his disad.,'antafles, who previouslv rernainect. an employee o1.the corporation; that

the Rules ot'thc PTC are statulor:v, therelbre, Constitutronal jLrrisdiction ooujci be

1ffif,=i=invckeci tirat thc Fedelal Government is uncrer legal obligati

i'/ n/
' thJ\fbiipration, as the services of the petiti
itloners provicled by
oy Secti
Sectl0ns i_\(2)
35(2) and
ll,n' l
.., j
rl t
* xrlir#"o (l) of the Act. 1996 are statuary and guaranteed. thereftire" the
'1tind ,,,
)ners are entitled for the revised pay eqr"ral to the employees of the
that cha'ge of terms aLrd condiliorrs througir agreement ca*not be

permitted, as it is rgaiirst the public policy; that ihe juclgurcnt passed b-v* the
C.l'. Nos. 13361)017 & 412i2018

l{on'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Mr-rhammad Riaz v. Fecleration of pakistan,

2015 scMR 1783, the petitioners are entitled for increase i'pay a'd pension as
amrounced by the Government frotl tinie to time, r,vhich lurther attracts Article
1 89 ot'the constitution of Islamic Republic of pakistan, 1973 (the Constitution). 9/',
8. In respect of laches, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the

issue related to "pav" is a fundamental right, r.vhich is prompted in tenns of _rQ,


Adicle 24 ol the constitution. He furlher contended that issue related to ,.pa1,"


recurring cause of action and no question of laches arises. He placecl reliance on

the cases reporled in (i) 2010 scMR 253. (ii) pLD 1990 Lahore 337. o9>l*r
(iii) 2009

cLCr 620, (iv) 2012 scMR 152, (v) 2016 scMR 1363. (vi) pLD 1969 sc 536, I

(vii) PLD 1992 sc 825. (viii) 2015 scN4R ra12.(ix) 201s scMR 1tg3,ltglgl s}),
IILLJ 86 Del, Khalid fulehmood v. G.ver*rent ol Pakistan. c.A. No.230-L / t.
-1 {
2015, PTCL v. Tariq Mehmood, c.A. No.576i2007, Asgrrar Aii v. prcl- w.p. t)/

No.l n380,101 2, lerter. dared 28.l 1 .201 S.

The learnecl counsel for pakistan Telecommunication company

contended that as a matter of facts and recorcl, the emplovees,
who rvcre in service
priol to 1't January' 1991 were governed under Statuary Service
Rules- but the said

Rules are not applicable to the emproyees, who rvere inclucted

i' service by the

Corporation after 1't Januarv 1991;that none of the j,"rdEnents

referred to by the

learned counsel for the petitioners indicate that the emplovees joined the .\ll
corporation afler 1't January 1991. were governed under Statuary
Rules; that
Section 20 of the Act, 1991, emoowers the corporation to fi.ame
Rules, th,s, rhe

Rr:les framed under the said Act rvere non-statuary; that the petitio'er
i' c.p.
No.l336 of 20ll,joinedthecorporationafter I'tJannary 1991 i.e.31,1December,

1991, therefore, c.P. No.1336 o12011 is nor maintainable: that

c.p. No.412 of
'*ft qs:X\
s maintainable, but the petitioner of c.p. No.412 of 2018, is bound

terms and co.ditions of Sections 35


& 36 of the Act, 1996; that the

ulf< \ ".) ,, ..lil ale not civil serrrants, therefore. in view ol Section 36 oi the Act.
no vested right to claim increase in pay announced by the Federal

, unless approached the Fede'al Gover*ment; that the petitioners had and alternate remedy, that the judgment of the FIon'bic Suprerne
rti, Itj4,
C.P. Nos. 1336i2017 & 412i:UlE

of Pakistan. titled as tr{uhamn-rad Riaz v. Fecieration of Palcistan,2015 SCMR

r 158i, was pelsolt specific and cther emplo,vees of the Ccurpany. applications lor

seeking the benefit olthe judgment of the l-ion'ble Supreme Court vr,as disrnissed.

The learned Deputy Attorney General representing the respondent No.l

while adopting the al'guments advanced by Mr. Shahid Anu'ar Bajlva, ArJvocate

contended that benellt ofsection 9 ofthe Act. 1991 and sections 35{2) and 36 of

the Act, 1996 is not available to the petitioner in C.P. No.133ti of 20 17, as 1re

joined services of the Corporation after promulgation of the Act of 199 1; that the

petitioners have no r.'ested right to claim theil promoticn rvithout fb1lor..,'ing the

process prescribed undei' Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Limited

Service Regulation. 1991 . it is furthel contendecl that main purpose ol'filing thcse

petilions is to defer the transfer and the discipiinary proceedings initiated by the

inanagement against them.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners while exercising their riglrt of

rebuttal cc.ntended that protection urder section 9 of the Act, I99 I anC sections

3512.) and 36 of the Act, 1996 wer"e cxtended io all the emp1o1'ees. rvho rr,er"e in

sen'ice of the corpolation prior to 1" January 1996: that sections 3 to 22 of the

civil Servants Act. 1973 (rhe Act 1973) have been macle appiicable tbr the

emplo;'ees of the corporation ard oiher,:onlpanies by tire I-Ion'ble sr-rpreme cour1

in petitions and judgment reported in 20i6 scMR 1362, therefbre, entitled the

lletirioners lol rer pai equal to lrecloral Cor.ernment enrplol ccs.

10. We have heard thc learned counsel for 1he parties and peruscd the recorcl

annexed aiongwith the petitions. Adr,erting to the case o{' Asaci Mehmood

petitioner in c.P. No.1336 of 2017 with regard to status of his employment

ccounts ofl-rcer (BPS-17).ride order dated 12'l'February 2015. which reads as

C.p. Nos. t336/2A17 & 412l:illB

"Managentent i.s preaset!

/o promote yoLt to the positio, ol-
Acco,nts oflicer (Bps-r7) 0s par chcrnner
of pr'nt,/ion vftrt
immetliate ffict you tui/r he enrirrecr to c,air
fncrnt.itir betteJits, tr.r
edmis,,yible /o Ihe netp position u.s.
lter Contpcnty policy.,,

11' Adrnitte<]Iy, the petitioner Asad

Meiirnood was oi. prc anil on
his transfbr. he opted promotion
vide order.ated l2rr,Februarv 2016
0'the terms
and conditions of the Company poricy,
thus no question orprotectio,
or benefit of
section 9(2) of trre Act 1991 or sections 35 (2) or 36(2) of
the r\ct oi. r996 was
al'airable to him, as he r,vas not enrirrol,ee of T&T I)epartmt-nt, but rre rvas
employed by p tCL on irs own ternis ancl conditiors and rre shalr be deart with
n accordingly. Refere*ce in this respect
I is to be made to ci'il Appeal No.576 0f
t 2007 decicled b-v- tire Ilon'ble sup'eme court ol pakisran
P claleci 24rr,
August 201--5. which reads as under:

"A's far at Muhamntatr

N'eent ancr Muhcuntrtcrcl l,-aheent
(res:pondenrs lio.2 and 3) are
concernecl, tltey v)ere nol
ql'T&7, but they were employecl btt pakitran
Corporation on its own terms ancl
conditio,s, rlterefot.e the1., sltctll
be dealt u'ith itt occordance wilh
rheit. rerm.s antl condition.s cf
s er,- i c e se tt I e d by t he p akis r an Te L e t:omm un i c qy 1 r, C, o rporct / irtn.,,

12' The case or Masoorl Ahmecr Bhatti

and others reporte<i in 20 i2 s.MIt 152
relied upo'by the learned counsel fbr the petitioners to
the cxient of.petitioner
Asad lr4ehmood is'ot attractecl to his case, as the juclgm
ent ihicrrerates to three
employees' who u'ere enrproyed
by fte Fecleration in trre T&T
l)epartment pfior to
the e'actnrent ortlre Act, iggl, whilsl the petitioner was appointed
in tire prc
afler promuigatio'of the Act
of 1991, therefore, rhe petitioner
Asad Meri'ood

tiot entployee of erst'"vrrire T&T Deparlment,
(- ti-rus protection under section
, ':."

t Act, 1991 and section 36 of trre Act

l.?rythe 1gg6, is nor artracteci ro his
tto'Uilon"s and co*ditions of service related
to pay, rransfer and disciprinary
proce-911ings is tr,r be go'ernecr u'der pakistan Terecor,mu'icatio'

.L"1urro service Reguration i996 (the Service Regulation,

1996) and rvithout
adopting the process prescribecr
under the Service Reguration,
trre instant petition
to his extent is noi maintainable.
C.P. Nos. 1J36,'20t7 & 412/2A18

13. whereas c.P No.412 of 2018 is concerrned, the learn.:d counsei fbr the

I resportdents conceded that the Constitutional Petition is nraintainable. In the

instant petition, it is contended that b1 virtue of section 9(2) oi'the Act 1991 ancl
sectionsr 3512] and 36(2) of the Act, i995, the p'etitioner retaint:cl his sta-tus as a

civii :,eivant b1r operation o{'1:1u,. tirerefbre. }re is entit-lecl to the pliy and otlrer

bette{lts anttor-tnced by the Federal Government frrr its empic-vres lr'or-ir time to

ljr-trc. FIe is also entitled lor promotion. transf'er and disciplinar) proct:eilinss in

rl:t nrarurc'r'prescribed uncer the Act. 1971.]'irough the enrploy'errs olrhe l-&-i'
[-lepartment were civii servants, but by operation ol iar.r.,. lirey ar.e required to be

dealt with in the change terms and colditions of their services: lirslly upon their

transi-er in the corporation and ihen iir P'rcL (company). Reference in this
respect is to be placed to the lbllowing judgments;

(l) l4uhamntad Zaman and olhers v. Governntent of' pcrki,glun

through. Secrctartt Fincincc l)i i.rioit (|legtlatirn ll:ing.s)
islantahad cmc{ orher,s 1201i' SClvlR 5i'i),
(2.) PTCL and others v. tr,Iusitod Ahntad Rhtttti cmti others t2t)16
scMR r362),
i3) Ma,sooc{ Ahmed Bhclti ancl otlicr.s -;. Fecleration a-f pulri.stan
, through Seuetrtrlt h,{/0 InJi.irmaticn |-echnalogv, uncl
Telecommttnicatian antl others e0l2 SC,VR. lS?,
('/) Muhammad Riqz y. Federation oj-pokistun thro,gh .\et:t.ctary,
A'{inistry oJ Int'armation Tech,ology Goverwnenr oi pukrstcu.r.

I-qlantabod and others (2015 SCIIIR 1783),

(5) State Bank of Pakistan through Goyernor ctntl other,s v. Jrntiaz

Ali Khan and others (2012 PLC (C S) 218),

(6) Pctkistan Telecomnrunicution Qt. Lttt tltrctuglt ('lhr-tir,t.n t,.

Icll:al Na,sir qncl others (PLD 201 1S(i 1_i27.

ta?, \ Ditisional Engineer Phones, Phanes Divi,sion Stikkur rtrttl

onother t. MLthcntmacl Shuhid uncl iithers (1999 ,SCttR I j26),

akis'lan Telecomnrunicqtion Corporalion cuttl another

"-. Rictz
hmed ond six others (PLD 1996 SC 222),

Ahrned Khan Niazi v. through Municipal Adwinistration.

Luhore through Town Municipal O.flicer and hvo others (pLD
2009 Lahore 657t
(10) A,{uhummad Din v. Nazttr A,Itharyunatl Khayr tuttf others
lf l,l-) l9(i6 ('It,'.P) l-tthort: t80 "
i.r. .\{.}s. I J,rCi/tUl 7 & .ll 2,/:01 g

1il' Admitredly, the petitioner in c.p No.412.f

201g was emproyee of r&T
Department, which was converte<r i'to Corporation by virtue of section 3 of
Act 1991. The riglrts related to the terms and
conclitions^.ices or such
emplol'ees wel'e guafanteed rincier
sectiori 9(2) of the Act lgg1. i^,hich
shall not be
varied by the corporation to his c.risadvantages.
Trre corporation (prc) converted
into Compa'y u'der the Act 1996. Sections
35(2) a'd 36(2) of the Act 1995
further extend protection to the terms and
concritions of services of the employees

tlanslerred from corporation to the companl . in the case titled pakistan

1996 SC i,-22, i vu'as observe cl tltat ,,emplo1,ee.s g.f. e rshrhile l.&T De7;lrtment fo
Corporatio, are cit;ir serva,ts wirhin
rhe mcarting o.f c'itil Scrvqnr,kt lg)73... It
rvas ajso lollowed in case titled Uyi$JU4|E%
Sukkur and an.trrer v. Muharnmaci
Shaliicl and others, 1999 scr4R r526.
tn Pakis.leL_Iq1€qama! pgny l_imitecl thelgLg1eryquajt
Iqbai Nasir and others, pLD 201r
sc r32. it rvas obsenecl that ,..ssn:icr:,s,

R e gul trt i o n of p T C or e 7r o n _ s I ct I ?,tt.o r t),, .

In the case titled paki

throurehM'D'. Isramabad and others v. Muhammad

Arif and o[e15, 2015 scMR
1472. rhe Ilon'bre Supreme
Cor-rrt of paki5tan at paragraph
No.1 g of trie judgment
obser'ec'l th-at "the rerms ctncr
cond.ition.s' of ,service ,yo
arso lhe rile.s of ser,_icc
which were appricable to the T&T
Deparrnlent enu)ro.t,ees y,itire
i, /he
emplovztsll 0l the Governntent of pakis'tctnwiil
conritu.rc ro be ctppriccrbre ro
an iheir tran.yfbr lct the Corporalion
antl ilten lc.t llte Contptrny.,.
Itt &hat
.-:.,:.. a{i'.}4r!iotry

n'Tl,]*r' the Apex court of the Counrry ar paragraph

No.14 observed as
: ,:: i]
Lr5rder:l ,i1l
r* J....,:i
,l' '/!
i,r cleat Jront
rhereadi,g.) tfr prrt,-i,sion
.(:f+ rt!)riq, r'' oj rhe
.ttc.\.t ol199|
Act I)/ I/yl .f0
.so Al.9O
'Y- rhot o-f rhe '4ct of lgg6 thttr &e rerms
rutcr concririon,v of"sar,-icc ol
t tlta Trttrls.fcrred,om [,ctT Deparlntettl ta the
Larpar,iir'n itnrL lhen tr: the a,mpen,,, renruin
unctltcret.l rtntl thc,
con.tirutec/ be pttid rhe benef,it.t ucltnissible io tlEn Lt.\

ctnployees. T.&T' Depariment. "

i5. i'tLre abor,'e rererred case, the petitioner ivluhaurmad

Riaz rvas held
entilleci to pa)'mcnt ol increase in ltar. ancl pensiol as anno'llcecl b' thc
Gor;ernment J:'onr time to tin:e. rn vier.r.or;;
ihe abo'e oi the
Apex court of the countr1,, the lear'ed
counsei iclr .rre petitioners tho,gh
contendeci that bi'' z\rticle 189 of the constitution
of Islamic Republic of'pakjstan.
1973 (the corlstitution). any decision of the
I-Ion'ble supreme ccLrn shall, to the
extent that it decrdes a question of law or is basecl
Lrpo.i or e'ur.rciates a pri'ciple
ol lar,r', be bi'di*g o' ail other courts in pakistan. horve'er.
coLrrcl not r.efirtc the
contention oj the learned counsel
i,,li for thr: pTCL rhat thc abor c r.e lcu.ecl iuCenent
ol llon'b1e Sup'eme coLrt not a pr.ececrent *.'th regarcl to ani,
'l,as oirrer c:rse on
l.he fcllrriving reasons:
I ",-lic 7"e/itirner Muhctntntcrt{ Ricrz
j tltrotrg/,t ( r.inii,tt/ ori;4i,t:!
Petirion ,\kr 6: el 201: ltrrtl .,r.;trgltr
cnfr."t'cenrcn/,iimprementctrittn o/
ihe i,.; ..".
] rhe ctfbre-ralerr.ed ,l:.iiri'
.iut.g,tent crctrttr
July, 6, 20JJ pussed" in Lit,il petirion
itio.797 oJ'20J5, v,lterein 7lJ
employecs of prCL ctittr pdlr Telecom
hetcr u]so /irt:cr L,rintiriur
A{iscelraneor's Applicctrirsn t\-o.
l63l/20r 7 lbr intpteacrruent crs
parQ' rhe fron'bre
'4pe-t Com't t,id. ortrer crated 27-10-2017 v,rtile
disnti.ssing lhe sante ob.sen,ed {),r
"T'his ctpplicariotz
hu.t bean .file d b;,, 714 entplot;ee.s
ct ilte PTCL ttntl pttk f clecom people.s
LInity, throttglr .seriiot. Cottnscl lu[r.
Latif Khan Kitoi,i. ,,:.jto s.eek
to be intpleadetl u.;
parlies' in Cri.niri,ti (h.i,1inctl petition
Aro. 6j uJ

2015. I{rnt,er,€r.. rji:r... L't.itrtinal Originnl petltjrtrt

lVo. 63 of 2015 arrre.i oiir c;,/'//te jud.gmenl
tlatecl July
6, 2015 i.n Cit,il pxii:;,.;it \:s. 797
oJ.2al5, y,hereip
none of the ap1:!itt;rtJ.,
i1.ere cu,rayecl as purlic:;,
there is no reus()t ro ,,nyiecul rhcnt
itr the pres,ent
proceedings, pcu.rit:ii*r!-t. irhen pTCL
ha,s sertlecl
Ihe ruttiler yt'ltlt ,\h .t,it;,.;7i117114,,1 piaz.
lhis applicorion r., :ijr.r; d l{rLtye,-er, llte
dismissal of thi.t : ...,.:-,i:,. tt!iott tr:ot,rlcl not in un1,
],atditr!er at/,l.,. r,.-;-. ..jir. i.igitr,s. iJ.uny, o./ lhe
a;tplicanls. "
l-1 L.1'j. \os. lJJ6/?tll7 & 412/2trtli '€{i$ffi*W

16. In Criminal Appeai No.2 ol 2018 tiled by P-I'CL in criminal original

Petition No. 63 of 20 i 5 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court v ide order dated 7th February

2018 u'as pleased to observe as under:

"That sinc'e lhe parlies cottld not crgtee ahout the antount thal was
payu67, Ut'rtuant to the u/itres'aid arder lhe Regislrcu'vas assigneC

the losk to calculale lhe satnr: v'hich lte ho,s th.tne. ll''e lttn'e
exantined the Regislrtrr"s cQ/ctrlalion's oJ rlte o111c)t111r5. leurned

t'ounsel hos nct been ub/e ttt persuucle us titcrt such t:alcululit'tns trre
(:onffary) to the aforesaid order. Hotvever, us' regctrcls tl'te ntatier of

at,ailing holh free medical services und also teceirlng a metlicctl

tllov,ance lv{uhamrnatl lliuz hss lrL e:lecl v'itich lte v'tutls..lnd a:;

regarcls lhe concern o{ the appellcml that the ptrt'nnnl v,ill

preccdent wirh regarti to unv other cuse.

Siltject Io the c(oresaid observarion/clcu'i/iculion llte

appeal againsl the Registar".s ortler is dismis,ted."

1'1 . Nou, adverting to the instant case. the relief claimed b'i rhe petitioner rviih

regard to increase in oay and pension equal to civil sen'ant llonr tine to tinre

announced by the Federal Gclernment and his promotion. lranst'cr as well as

status of the petitioner under ritich he is to be proceeded u'itl-r for disciplinary

proceedings b1,the Deparlment. '[-ite conteirtion olthe petitioner rl,itir regar-c1 to his

entitlement to the same' pension rs is announced by the Governmcnt of Pakistan is

corrccrncd. thc llon'ble Suprcnrc LtrLrn iu crsc titlcd Pakistrn Tuiccornmunieation

brptovees frust (lfgll , 2015 SCMR l:lJJ. observed as

: :..- -,.-.-..i,:t:n':.,

tt t'es oJ T'cftT Depru'tntenl !ittt:lvtg

!ne !,(/111].)0111.),

(ilii:.,frlriJlott ci,g is arutr,ttnicetl hr- th.e

rruneril of Pakisran iri?rl:Ijt.i.r ilrc Bou'd oJ'Trustees rtf rhc Trusl

w .(\
bot,md lo Jo!ltr,t, :.Ltci!
respecl of stLth cmpLovet:
itttti":!Li?("Jt,\ct1t oJ' the Gttt'e|nnt::ttt itt.

i B. in the iustant ca.scr. the irciiiirln.r at present is in service and the relief

sought by ldm is plernature. The "{*lnsl .-r'per Liotirt in case titled lvlasood Ahmed
, L.l'. \os. l-ljb/ztll7 & 412/2ttl8 "!*iES.WW

ffi 16. In Criminai Appeai No.2 o1 2018 tiled b,v PTCI- in Criminal Original

Petition No. 63 of 20i 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 7th February

2018 u'as pleased to observe as nnder:

"Thtil since llte parties cauld not agree ahout the amctunt litat ytas
pa1'able plrrsuant lo lhe afures'aid order the Re,gistr"cu'v,ct,s ussigned

the losk to t:ulculate the satne which he ltas t{one. IIia ltuve

exanilned tlrc Regisirar':; calcltlalion,s of rhe olnouilts. 'lhc leurned

coun.sel hcts no! been ab/c lo per,s'trttc{e u.s tltutsuch culcululittns urc

contrary) lo the aforesaid order. Howet,er, as regarcls the ntatter

at, both free medical services and al,so rec:eiying u n'tctlical
ullowance l,fulnntmctcl |iicrz ltos to elect v:hit'h lte v,tutls. Ancl


regards lhe cancern o.f the aapellant thut //te pu;nm v;il!
constittlle ct precedent ,such con.lention is nol correci crs i/ hac{
alrectdt'been noted in lhe said order rhal
precet/ent y,ith regarcl to, rtther case.

Siltject to the rgores'uid observation/c'lorificntion

il tvctultl not cor1s'rilule .t

crstpeal against the Regisbat",y ort{er is disntissecl "

1-1 .
Now adverting to the instant

to increase in nay and pension

case. the

reiief claimed b-; ihe petitioner rvith

to civil tl-ont time to titrre

Frt ?dd|adjti.l

annollnced bi' the Federal Gciernment and his promotion. transfer as well as

status ol the petitioner under ttich he is to be proci:eded vvith for disciplinarv

proceedings by the Department. -fhe contention of the petitioner rvith regarcl to his

entitiemettt to the same pension rs is announced by the Government of Pakistan is

concerned, the I-Ion'b1e Snpremc Ccr"rn in case tilled Pakistan Tclecommrrnir:arion

Iltnnlovees Trust (PTET)

r. , 2015 SCMR 14J1. trbserved as ffi
''" '].-lt. ;Hffi

!':1 \
__\:l:^",\ :.i;fnr
'lF \&\.
\ n,\
tha Jbregoing re{lsoti\. t';c itqcl cor}"te {o lhe conclusion titttl
tr" nticn!r. tr/rr, tr. ''.' . ',r' , r. t r r,/ Tr|1T D,'pttt't;ttLttt ii,tt'irtF

rheir'::' t{} ii:J ('Drporillian un({ /he ('ont1,trin,Lt,

l-i .<"\ fo,"'/ ,\'fil,i / ufttt'
"'\ (& L ,lfrj$r, ,:nlillc,l to llte <ttti:, !]i1tsiot1 (i,s i.\^ ontloLutced h-v the
\\ \ ,.tI' /*flrr*r,rt
uf Pakisratrc,?{i riir,t
to 1o!1,,;r \r,(,' . '','
r'lte Botu'd oJ Trustees' ol ihe Tntst

'':,?L,it!uit oJ rhc Gutt'r'nttt,.,rrt itt ffi

t'csl1c(t of ';ttcJr c'rrl'1dtti r


i8. in thtl irrstant case. tlle i,cllir,:l"tsr at present is in service and the relief

sought by him is premature. The ,{ulus: '\pex C'ourt in case titled lvlasood Ahmed
\2 C,P. Nos. 1.136/10l'& "tl2i:013

Bhatti ar-rd others v. Federation ol Pakistan tirrcrugh Seoretar). M/O. Information

'lechnoloe)' atrd Telecornmlrnication and other5 , 2012 SCN,IR 152, tl,e l-lon'ble

Suprerne Coufi observed that "lhe,se oppeals hq,-e been filetl by three intli,;itltrul

appellanls', v,ho ctdmittetlly were civil servanls entployetl b),the Feclcrctrion ittt

Telephone and 'l-elegraph (T&T) Deptrrtntent prior to enctctn,tent o.l' Pakisttut

Telecomtnunication Corporation AcL I99l (tlte PTC.Act) and in para No,15, it

\\ as observed as \urder.'

"Thus ir is et,ident that ut the nrcment of tronsitiott when fhc

apltcllctnls ceos'cd to remoin lhc emplo.vces rt'the Corporution unt{
becante the entplol,ees aj PTCl,, they admittecily y,ere got,ernetl bt'

rulcs and regulations which hacl lteen protecred by the PTC Act.
The sqid rules, therefore, by definilion, t,r'ere stcttltlory rt.ties a,s' ltus
becn cliscu,s,setl aboye. PTCL, no cloubl. cotLld ntake beneficial rtie.s

irt relatiot't to il-c emplo.r,ees y,hich were in addition to the rLtlas o/'
employment pret,ailing on I-l-1996. Hou,et'at, bt; yirlue ol the

oforesaid proviso, PTCL had no power to "t,ary the tertns und

conditions of ser,-ice " oJ its ernplol,ees v,ho y,er.e pt.ct,ious/1,
cntployee.s of the Corporation, "lo lheir tlisadvcnttcrge". Even lhe
Fecleral Gctt,erntnent **as clebar.retl by vit.tue o.f .section 35 ibid.

.f|om vary,ing s'uch terms and conditions of sert,ice to the

' dis'cttltlanlage of lhe ctpytellcml.s."

19. The above juclgnlent came under review b.v the Larqer Bench ol the

I-lon'ble supreme courl of Pakistan in case reporled as p.l'.c.L. and oihers v.

@,2016 SCMR 1362, the F{on'ble Supreme Courr

observed as under:

",4 fleefing glance at the provisions quotetl ahove vtoulcl reyeal

ihal the departntentcti entplq,ee:; ot't lheir trans/br to lhe

Corporalion beccune employees oJ rhe (orporution untlar se c:tion l)

,.':; pf the Act $ 1991 mtcl rhan of"the Compctn,"' untler section 35 oJ'the
lit;.uf I9QO Tlteir t(rnt: Ltnd totrtlilrurrl q/ r..,;.r'lt'e, tl.t, .fttll.y.

I *r' j
under ,scction 9(2) of the Acr cl }991 antt 35(2) tf the At:r

,lf:i'Y96 l\'ortt' of tlte te rrus qncl conilition,y r:oulcl be t,crietl to tjtcir

,,,. ii,
V'ciis1;tlrartlagu a.l is protticletl by tlta sectir:ns rept,0dLr::ccl abottc, jiot
y,7;fnlt rhat the legislattLre also bowtd the Federul Go\rernnlent to
\\ guaruntcc rhc t'.rist:ng tt't'tilS and conditiorts rf .su't'ict, untl rigltts
inclttding pensioncu'i; hene-fitt oJ'the lratrsJerred entployecs of the
Corporation in thc jirst insttlt,-:e and lh.en ihc c:ontpany, the1., ditl
t3 C.P. Nos. lJ3i,i20l7 & '11212018

not remctin Civil Servt.utts ctnv iltore. ilut the l.ernts ttnd cont/i.iion,s
o-f their sen:ice proyidetl b), secti.ons 3 to 22 o/ tlte Ciril Seryants
Act ond protected by section 9(2) of the Acr o.l' l99l crncl sectiott.t

35(2),36(a) und h) ol the Acr oJ 1996 are essentialll: st71t11ts7'1:.

Iiiolation of uny oJ thent y,ctuld !hus be qntencthle to thc
constitutional ju'iscliction of the High Cotrrt. 7'horrgh in tlte,;

of PakislaL ()orporotion atid ffitother r. Ricrz

.4hnted ancl 6 otlters antl Ditis'ional EnS:inecr Phone,s, Pltones

Divi.tion, Sukkur and ctnoiher v., lufuhutnntac! ShoJtid and otlters

(supts) it v,cts held thut lhe ck:partmental emp/o..,,ees on their
trctnsJbr to the Corporation and tlrctt lo lhe Cotripcutl' tvoulcl
continue /o be the Civil Seryutts, but tiri,s intc:rpretcftion does' not
oppeer to be r-'orrect as iliev on lltcir trunsfer becuntc entplovees'of
lhe (lorporuticn ttnder 9 ol lhe ,,lct ol'199i and tltcn rt,f the

eontpany trnder s'ection 35 of rhe Act cf 1996. Ret,:ntion of rircit.

,elotLrs as cit.,i.l scrvanls is ihus txot sLtppa'ted 1l;, 1/1g y,orcJs usecl in
t he afctr e said pr ovi s ion s. "

)0. ):'rc'm the above, il is obvior"rs tirat the lratrsttrred emplol'es5 of T&l
Depafirnent became ernplc.ryees of ihc. Corporation and then of the Clornpany, but

they are not civii servants anynrore. hou,ever. tenls ancl conditions o1' their

s€rvices rmder section 13 and 9(2) of the Act oi' 199i and secticns j5(2) anci 36(1)

and (2) of the Act. 1996 are proteoteddailri nore olthc terrns and conclilions could

be variecl to theii disaclvantage, which are staiutorlr' as providecl in sections 3 to 22

oi't1te Act. 1973 and irt case of any violzLtion, such empioyees can ar.aii remeci,rr by

rvay of filing petitron under Anicle 1t)9 olthe Constitution.

21. The provisions of sections -1 to 22 of the Act. 1973 inclr"xling disciplinarl'

natters are applicable to iire transfbrretl emplovees ftom T&'I' L)eparfiment. in

case of any ciisciplinary action against such emplo;'ees, tlie,v are; to be ptocceded

. said Service Ruies being plotectecl in,,,ierv cf the jr-rdgmerit. oi'the

i_ 1i1\,un,i"tthe
I{oiill;lc Sr-rpreme Corrt of Pakistan reported in 2016 SCMR 1362. lhe petitioner

' 1l9i"l!:1 c.lain.l o1'promotion thor.rgh liieil certain anpointlnenr ordels of various

., ie'rr4lioYees of the PTCL, bui none of rhem had been impleaded as a pafiy,
'\ therefore, in absence of necessarv partic.s. no adverse order is permissible unCer
* the law. ever otherlvise, the petitioner has renied_r' io ii'st appr.oach the

t4 C.P. Nos. 1J36/2017 & .ll:i2Uls

Deparlrnent for his due promotion. if anv or anv of his another grieyance related
to trzrnsfer or disciplinar.v proceedings.

22" As regards the ciaim of the petitioner.rvitrr regard

to pa;,a*c1other be*efits
equal to civil servants of Government emproyees, sectio' 2(s)(t) of the
Act of
1996 provides that such employees are entitlecl
to receive pensio'ary benet-rts
lrom the Cotporation and proviso of sectio' 36
ciepicts that the Federal
Government shail gr-rarantee the eristing terlns
and co*clitions of and
rights, r'ciuding pensionar',v benefits of the
transf-ened cilployees. Section g of
Act of 1991 further enlporvers the F-ecleral Government to issue policy/direcli'e
the authority not inconsistent with trre provision
of the Act^ 1991. The petitio'er
in view of the judgment of FIon'bie Supreme
court is nc more servant except
the p.otection of tetms and conditions
olhis se'vice guaranteed under section 9.f
the Act 1991 and section 36 cl'tire Act 1996,
and in respect of his ciaim of pay

equal to civil servants frorn time to time of the p.ederat Government. he has
gjtemate and efficacious remedy tti approach the
competent authority.

ry#\ lrr view of the abor"e, constitutionar petitions

ismissed accordingly. parties are left

No.1336 of 2017 and 4rz of

to bear their ora,n costs.

rS\ ,ffiJtt l;
Announced in ooen Court

Todav 11rir 20't't+ day of Febru ary,2019

ffiTo st A rRuE coPY