Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
LTILUltr!
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
VERSUS
CONSTITUTION PETITIO
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
VERSUS
JT]DCMENT
lUConstitutionat P
; qinii'i-r re s po ncl cr rt
-\'i-,-\\ General
\r/
lPe
q
rx M/s, Syed Ansar llussain Zaidi. Masood Ahrned
rp
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
ffip*
Muhammad Eiaz Swati. .J.- Since both the Petitions relate io sarne facts and law,
t
&
2,
Telegraph
The Telecommunications in Pakistan were being run by tire pariistan
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
the Corporation. Sections 9(1), (2) & (3) of the Act l99l prov ide as under:
same lerms and conditions tct which ty'tey vtere entitled inntetlicttely
scrtirill itt othat organizttlions, but does' no! include ntenthcrs oJ'the
C.P. \-os. l336l20li rt 412/20,l8
Section 8 of the Act, 1991 states abor.rt the employment of the officers,
(the Act, 1996) was promulgated r-rnder section 2 (d) ol the Act 1996. u,l.rich
Emplovees as under:
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
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
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
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
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
the Rules ot'thc PTC are statulor:v, therelbre, Constitutronal jLrrisdiction ooujci be
i'/ n/
' thJ\fbiipration, as the services of the petiti
itloners provicled by
oy Secti
Sectl0ns i_\(2)
35(2) and
a
ll,n' l
.., j
)li
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
-t'tt.t:Jli*}''It.d..ution:
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
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}),
.r'
IILLJ 86 Del, Khalid fulehmood v. G.ver*rent ol Pakistan. c.A. No.230-L / t.
-1 {
,t..tlY
2015, PTCL v. Tariq Mehmood, c.A. No.576i2007, Asgrrar Aii v. prcl- w.p. t)/
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,
efficacior.rs and alternate remedy, that the judgment of the FIon'bic Suprerne
courl
rti, Itj4,q.lt:
C.P. Nos. 1336i2017 & 412i:UlE
n:l,l::r'.ri'
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.
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
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
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
in petitions and judgment reported in 20i6 scMR 1362, therefbre, entitled the
lletirioners lol rer is..cl 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
under
C.p. Nos. t336/2A17 & 412l:illB
,..u']s
tiot entployee of erst'"vrrire T&T Deparlment,
(- ti-rus protection under section
, ':."
13. whereas c.P No.412 of 2018 is concerrned, the learn.:d counsei fbr the
instant petition, it is contended that b1 virtue of section 9(2) oi'the Act 1991 ancl
i
j
i
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
I
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;
PI-f)
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,
Petition No. 63 of 20 i 5 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court v ide order dated 7th February
"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
"l'ha
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
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
proceedings b1,the Deparlment. '[-ite conteirtion olthe petitioner rl,itir regar-c1 to his
under:
: :..- -,.-.-..i,:t:n':.,
!ne !,(/111].)0111.),
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
m
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
"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
coun.sel hcts no! been ab/c lo per,s'trttc{e u.s tltutsuch culcululittns urc
crs
ffi
HffiTffifi
rffdil"-hlr'11["'.-;
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 o.tn, rtther case.
lhe
ffi
crstpeal against the Regisbat",y ort{er is disntissecl "
1-1 .
t'egard
Now adverting to the instant
eQr-ial
reiief claimed b-; ihe petitioner rvith
annollnced bi' the Federal Gciernment and his promotion. transfer as well as
proceedings by the Department. -fhe contention of the petitioner rvith regarcl to his
undel
r. , 2015 SCMR 14J1. trbserved as ffi
ffi
ffi
''" '].-lt. ;Hffi
!':1 \
__\:l:^",\ :.i;fnr
:-il;;*f
'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
L
ffi
t
\
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
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
\\ as observed as \urder.'
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
19. The above juclgnlent came under review b.v the Larqer Bench ol the
observed as under:
,.':; pf the Act $ 1991 mtcl rhan of"the Compctn,"' untler section 35 oJ'the
t,.
lit;.uf I9QO Tlteir t(rnt: Ltnd totrtlilrurrl q/ r..,;.r'lt'e, tl.t, .fttll.y.
tt{iiigtt.t
I *r' j
under ,scction 9(2) of the Acr cl }991 antt 35(2) tf the At:r
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
)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
oi't1te Act. 1973 and irt case of any violzLtion, such empioyees can ar.aii remeci,rr by
case of any ciisciplinary action against such emplo;'ees, tlie,v are; to be ptocceded
' 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,
r(
'\ therefore, in absence of necessarv partic.s. no adverse order is permissible unCer
i
* the law. ever otherlvise, the petitioner has renied_r' io ii'st appr.oach the
t
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.
equal to civil servants frorn time to time of the p.ederat Government. he has
gjtemate and efficacious remedy tti approach the
competent authority.
ft,
.l
ry#\ lrr view of the abor"e, constitutionar petitions