Employees transferred from T&T to PTC, and subsequently to PTCL: SC judgement
A three-judge, headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Ayesha A Malik, on Thursday, announced the judgment regarding of pension of PTCL ex-employees.
Multiple judgments of various High Courts were impugned before the Court, essentially on the same subject matter being the entitlement of the employees of the erstwhile Telegraph and Telephone (T&T) Department to receive the same pension and pensionary benefits accorded to civil servants, as notified by the federal government from time to time.
Justice Yahya and Justice Amin disagreed with the judgment of Justice Ayesha.
Justice Yahya judgment said while employees transferred from T&T to Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC), and subsequently to Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) ceased to be civil servants, the statutory framework governing their transfer safeguarded their pensionary entitlements in full: not just as frozen benefits fixed at the time of transfer, but as living rights that were to progress in accordance with prevailing standards applicable to similarly situated public servants.
The scheme under Section 9 of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991, and Section 36 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorga-nization) Act, 1996 guarantees the continuation of these entitlements, and the administrative mechanism created under the PTCL Act, including the establishment of Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust (PTET) was intended to facilitate, not frustrate, this guarantee.
PTCL and PTET are duty-bound to ensure that the full measure of these entitlements is met, and any interpretation that reduces these rights to static or discretionary payments is contrary to the legislative mandate.
The majority judgment clarified that this conclusion and these dispositions, have not been reached in ignorance of the financial concerns raised by PTCL and PTET.
The submissions regarding the financial burden and claims of fiscal unsustainability have been duly considered. However, financial difficulty does not absolve a statutory entity of its legal obligations. If the existing pension model is incapable of sustaining the financial burden, it is the model that must be recalibrated, not the statutory entitlements curtailed. That said, the practical challenges identified by PTCL and PTET are real, and it is recognised a rigid timeline for disbursement may not be financially viable. Accordingly, PTCL must acknowledge its continuing financial liability towards former civil servants and reflect this as a declared liability on its financial records in accordance with applicable accounting and corporate law principles.
Thereafter, PTCL, through PTET, may determine a feasible disbursement schedule for revised pensionary payments, the needful be done within 90 days, and that the payment process remains transparent and equitable in addressing the rightful claims of the affected pensioners. The chief justice held; CPLA Nos. 412, 420–424, 461–463, and 506 of 2019; CPLA Nos. 424-K, 357-K, and 365-K of 2019; CPLA Nos. 6005, 6006, 6023–6030, 6087–6096, 6101–6106, 6268–6273, and 6364 of 2021, 6453-6456 of 2021; and CPLA Nos. 134–135 of 2022 are dismissed. The impugned judgments of the High Courts are upheld to the extent that they grant pensionary revisions to those transferred employees who were civil servants at the time of their transfer. Such employees are entitled to the continuation of pensionary benefits, including revisions notified by the federal government.
The CPLA Nos 2107, 2140, 2141, 2143, 2144, 2145, 2146, and 2147 of 2022 are allowed. The impugned judgments are set aside. The petitioners, being civil servants at the time of transfer, are entitled to continued pensionary revisions as per federal government notifications.
The CPLA Nos 2138, 2139, and 2142 of 2022 are allowed, subject to classification confirmation. The matters are remanded to the relevant High Court for factual determination of the service status of the petitioners at the time of transfer. If the petitioners are found to have been civil servants, they shall be entitled to the continuation of pensionary benefits, including revisions notified by the federal government.
The CPLA Nos 6205, 6222-6225, 6332, 6333, 6358-6363, 6379, 6437, 6485, 6545-6550, 6553-6556 of 2021, and CPLA Nos 30, 112-114, 118, 139-145, 329, 330, 368-371, 465-471, 645 of 2022 are remanded for determination whether each petitioner held civil-servant status at transfer end, and if so, for corresponding pension revisions.
The CPLA No 426-K of 2019; CPLA Nos 1919 and 2066 of 2019; and CPLA Nos 369, 373, and 603 of 2018 are dismissed, as the petitioners either availed VSS, were not civil servants at the time of transfer, or did not establish a statutory entitlement to pensionary revisions under the applicable legal framework.
The CPLA Nos 2197, 2199, and 2200–2205 of 2022; CPLA Nos. 2563 and 2564 of 2022; and CPLA Nos 495-K and 496-K of 2023 are remanded to the relevant High Court for determination of the petitioners' employment classification and entitlement to relief in light of the legal principles laid down in this judgment.
The CA No 1509 of 2021 is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Crl.O.P. No 28/2018 in Crl.O.P. No 54/2015; Crl.O.P. Nos 56/2018 and 84/2018 in C.P.L.A. No 1643/2014; Crl.O.P. No 144/2022 and Crl.O.P. No 29/2023 in C.P.L.A. No 568/2014 are dismissed as infructuous. Crl.M.A. No 139/2025 in Crl.O.P. No 56/2018 is also dismissed.
CMA Nos. 5783/2022, 5641/2022, 5784/2022, 5785/2022, 5786/2022, 5624/2022, 5787/2022, 5788/2022, 5638/2022, 5789/2022, 5883/2022, 5862/2022, 6066/2022, 6075/2022, 6076/2022, 6079/2022, 6074/2022, 6601/2022, 6602/2022 (interim applications for injunctive relief in various CPLAs) are disposed of as infructuous, the main matters having been decided.
CMA Nos. 1470/2020 and 7698/2022 in CPLA No. 463/2019; CMA Nos. 1636 and 1637/2022 in CPLA No. 6005/2021; CMA Nos. 1633 and 810/2022 in CPLA No. 6358/2021; and CMA No. 11521/2023 in CPLA No. 6379/2021, and CMA No. 7515/2024 in CPLA No. 6104 of 2021 all seeking impleadment, are dismissed.
CMA No. 8153 of 2023 in CPLA No. 424-K of 2019, seeking de-clubbing of the petition, is dismissed.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
an hour ago
- Business Recorder
SJC decides 19 complaints, defers 5
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), unanimously, decided 19 complaints out of 24, and deferred five for the time being. In February, the SJC had examined as many as 46 complaints against constitutional office-holders, disposed of 40 of them, sought comments on five complaints and asked for further information in one case. According to a press release, issued by PRO SC on Saturday, the Council examined 24 complaints under Article 209 of the Constitution. It said, '19 complaints were unanimously decided to be filed while five others were deferred for the time being.' The Council meeting was held under the chairmanship of Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, who is also Chairman of the SJC at Supreme Court, Islamabad. It was attended by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah (present through video link), Justice Munib Akhtar, Chief Justice Lahore High Court Aalia Neelum and Chief Justice Sindh High Court Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar. The sources said that during the meeting a proposal by CJP Yahya was placed before the members that action should be taken against those complainants who file frivolous applications against the judges of the superior courts in order to discourage such practice. However, the Council did not approve it, and also preferred that judges whose names are cleared by the SJC are not disclosed. The Council discussed all the agenda items one by one. The proposed draft of Supreme Judicial Council Secretariat Service Rules, 2025 was approved by the council, while it was resolved that procedure of enquiry and amendments in the Code of Conduct needed to be examined from legal and drafting point of view; therefore, these required further deliberation. Six judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Justice Saman Raffat Imtiaz, on March 25, 2024 had written a letter to the SJC against the alleged 'interference' and 'intimidation' by the 'operatives of intelligence agencies.' In their letter, they sought guidance from the SJC with regard to 'the duty of a judge to report and respond to actions on part of members of the executive, including operatives of intelligence agencies that seek to interfere with discharge of his/ her official functions and qualify as intimidation'. Former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa in response to their letter held various meetings with the Supreme Court judges and even with the Prime Minister. He then formed a one-man Commission comprising ex-CJP Tassaduq Hussain Jillani to probe the allegations of the IHC judges. However, Justice Tassaduq, due to trolling on social media declined to head the commission. Ex-CJP Faez then took a suo moto and constituted a seven-member bench to examine the IHC judges' concerns. The bench conducted three hearings on it. However, Justice Yahya, who was also a member of the bench, opposed the suo moto and recused from the bench. He in his order had proposed that as the IHC judges wrote a letter to the SJC; therefore, the Council should do something about it. Justice Yahya after becoming Chief Justice of Pakistan summoned the SJC meeting, wherein Justice Munib was appointed as head of a committee to propose amendments to the code of conduct. The sources said, in today's (July 12) Council meeting, Justice Munib tabled a comprehensive report in that regard. The Council members after examining the report resolved that the procedure of enquiry and amendments in the Code of Conduct needed to be examined from legal and drafting point of view therefore these required further deliberation. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Military court convicts entitled to 'file petitions'
In a landmark judgment, the Peshawar High Court (PHC) has ruled that individuals convicted by military courts had the constitutional right to file writ petitions before the High Court. The decision came as a significant blow to the federal government's stance, which had argued that such petitions were inadmissible due to the availability of alternative forums for appeal. A two-member bench comprising Justice Waqar Ahmad and Justice Sadiq Ali Memon issued the detailed verdict while hearing a petition filed by Adnan and others from Mardan, who had been convicted by military courts in connection with the May 9 incidents following the arrest of Imran Khan. The petitioners have contended that they had not been involved in the unrest that had taken place at the Mardan City police station and had been wrongfully implicated. They have pointed out that while their co-accused had been tried in anti-terrorism courts, they had been handed over to military courts without being provided an explanation or legal documentation. During the hearing, the Deputy Attorney General objected to the admissibility of the petition, arguing that the petitioners had an alternative appellate forum which they had failed to approach within the prescribed timeframe. Therefore, he claimed, the petition was time-barred and not maintainable. In response, the petitioners' counsel, Barrister Amirullah Chamkani, maintained that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had in a recent short order suggested that the federal government amend the Pakistan Army Act to formally recognize High Courts as appellate forums for military court convictions. However, the counsel pointed out, the government had failed to implement these amendments, thereby depriving the petitioners of an appellate remedy. Chamkani further argued that his clients were unaware of the charges against them, had not been provided any trial documents, and had only been informed after the lapse of the appeal period. He, therefore, contended that it was unjust to declare their petition inadmissible. The PHC, in its written order, observed that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 could not be denied, especially in situations where no effective remedy was available to the aggrieved parties. The court ruled that the absence of any appellate forum and the lack of transparency in the trial process justified the maintainability of the writ petition. Referring to the precedent set in the Brigadier Ali case, the court noted that even the Supreme Court, while upholding military trials under the Army Act, had accepted that High Courts could exercise jurisdiction in such matters.
Express Tribune
11 hours ago
- Express Tribune
SJC reviews 24 judicial complaints, dismisses 19
Chief Justice of Pakistan and Chairman National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee Justice Yahya Afridi chairing the meeting of NJPMC at Supreme Court of Pakistan today on Friday, July 11, 2025. Photo: Supreme Court Website Listen to article Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), chaired by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi, examined 24 complaints filed under Article 209 of the Constitution.19 complaints were dismissed unanimously, while five were deferred for future consideration. The council convened in Islamabad on Saturday to discuss several agenda items, including proposed administrative reforms and judicial complaints, according to an official release. The council also approved the draft of the Supreme Judicial Council Secretariat Service Rules, 2025. However, further deliberation was recommended on proposed procedures for inquiries and amendments to the judicial Code of Conduct, which members said required legal and drafting review. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah joined the meeting via video link, while Justices Munib Akhtar, Aalia Neelum (Chief Justice of Lahore High Court), and Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar (Chief Justice of Sindh High Court) were in attendance. Earlier, the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee (NJPMC) decided to protect judicial officers from external influence and asked the high courts to establish structured mechanisms for reporting and redressing such instances within a stipulated timeframe. A statutory body responsible for formulating and implementing judicial policy, the NJPMC held its 53rd meeting on Friday at the Supreme Court of Pakistan. According to a statement issued after the meeting, the NJPMC also took serious notice of enforced disappearances in the country. The committee unanimously resolved that the judiciary would not compromise on its constitutional duty to safeguard fundamental rights. In this regard, it formed a dedicated committee to formulate an institutional response, after taking into consideration concerns of the executive, to be communicated through the attorney general for Pakistan (AGP). The committee deliberated on key policy issues and adopted several significant measures to improve judicial performance, technology integration in judicial processes and citizen-centric justice delivery. To improve the commercial dispute resolution landscape, the NJPMC approved the establishment of Commercial Litigation Corridor, with specialised courts and benches.
