PTCL’s Mukhtar Case

Fixed for hearing on 27-02-2018

1. The petitioners joined the service before creation of

PTCL under Sect. 34 of the P.T. (Re-Organization) Act,
1996 i.e. before 01-01-1996 under statutory contract of
service. This group of employees was called as
“transferred employees” under the Act. Their terms
and conditions are protected under as “public policy”
under Sec. 36 of P.T. (Re-Organization) Act, 1996.Thus
“pay” is part of statutory terms and conditions of service
settled at the time of initial appoint to be governed
under Sec. 17 of the Civil Servant Act, 1973. Pay is
property, a guaranteed right which means that the
amount drawn as pay and includes technical pay,
personal pay, and any other emoluments declared by
the authority as pay.

2. The petitioners are paid pay since their appointment in

accordance with the Scheme of Basic Pay Scales and
other Fringe Benefits of Civil Employees of the Federal
Government (1983) notified vide No. F.1(1)-Imp./83
dated 18-08-1983.

3. The petitioners enjoyed this guaranteed right of pay

since their appointment to 30-06-2004. The
respondents unilaterally modified and changed the
governing pay scale scheme for the petitioners.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the land mark judgment

reported at 2012 SCMR 152, titled Masood Ahmed
Bhatti and others vs federation of Pakistan and others
held that the Company (Respondents) had no power to
“vary the terms and conditions of service” of employees
who were previously employees of the Corporation, to
their disadvantage”---Even Federal Government was
debarred by virtue of section 35 from varying such
terms and conditions of service to the disadvantage of
transferred employees. Relevant para 14, 15, 16, 17 &
18].

5. This Hon’ble Court is now seized with two question as

under;-
 1. Whether the Respondents have any jurisdiction under
the Act, 1996 to modify and change in scheme of Basic
Pay Scale (BPS) 1983?

2. Whether the Respondents illegally changed the pay of

the petitioners under non-statutory PTCL Scale under
the veil BPS scheme 1983?

6. In the first case the Respondents have no authority

under the Act of 1996 to modify and change in the
statutory scheme of basic Pay Scale Scheme, 1983 in
the case of petitioners. If it is so, the respondents any
modification and change is patently void and illegal and
without jurisdiction. Therefore petitioners are lawfully
entitled for time to time revision and increase BPS
scheme 1983 as announced by the Federal Government.

7. The Respondents may have power to make modification

and changes in non-statutory their own framed pay
scale. In case we assumed that the respondents
changed statutory pay scales of the respondents to their
own framed pay scale under non-statutory PTCL Service
Regulations-1996 then:-

a. The respondents of guilty of committing fraud with

petitioners.

b. They have adversely changed the terms and

conditions of service of the petitioners.
c. The petitioners’ right to invoke constitutional
jurisdiction under Art. 199 for swift remedy have
ceased by the respondents unlawfully.

d. The petitioners’ are deprived the right enshrined

under Arts. 24 and 25 of the Constitution.

8. Thus it is abundantly clear that the Respondents have

no jurisdiction either to modify and change in Basic Pay
Scale Scheme, 1983 or impose non statutory
Respondents own pay scale scheme in the case of
employees who are in service prior to 01-01-1996.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled P.T.C.L.

and others vs Masood Ahmed Bhatti and others reported
at 2016 SCMR 1362 has held that terms and conditions
 of transferred employees are provided by section 3 to 22
of the Civil Servants Act and protected by section 9(2) of
the Act of 1991 and sections 35 (2), 36 (a) and (b) of the
Act of 1996 are essentially statutory. Violation, of any of
them would thus be amenable to the constitutional
jurisdiction of the High Court for remedy. Rel is placed
on [p. 1369] A.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled this issue in the
case titled as Muhammad Riaz vs Federation of Pakistan
and others reported at page 2015 SCMR 1783 has held
the transferred employees are entitled to payment of
increase and revisions in pay as announced by the
Government from time to time in BPS Scheme 1983.
Reliance is placed on para No. 8.

A. On point of public policy

i. E. A. EVANS Vs Muhammad Ashraf PLD 1964 S C

536
ii. Habibullah Vs Govt. of the Punjab & 5 others PLD
1980 Lahore 337
iii. Muhammad Masihuzzaman Vs Federation of
Pakistan PLD 1992 Supreme Court 825

B. On point of “Fraud”

(I) ---Ground of ---ground of fraud is generally

available when a person by maneuvering keeps his
adversary in dark or prevents him from acquiring
knowledge of an adverse action or order
taken/passed against him. PLD 1990 SC 692
[p.701] H

(II) Fraud would vitiate the most solemn

proceedings---Any transaction or act based on
fraud could be challenged when it was discovered
to the concerned aggrieved part. 2016 MLD 365
(Supreme Court)
 (III) Once it is granted that the respondents had been
defrauded and that the appellant would not have
gained what is with them without such fraud, no
Court in Pakistan if it has any discretion in the
matter, could permit a party to obtain benefit on
account of a fraud committed on an innocent
person as against the latter. [p. 524] B 1991
SCMR 520

C. When basic order is without lawful authority and ab

initio void, then the entire superstructure raised thereon
falls to the ground automatically.

i. Yousaf Ali vs Muhammad Aslam [Head note (b)

PLD 1958 SC (Pak) 104 [p. 116] G

The petitioners are entitled to payment of increase and

revisions in pay as announced by the Government from time
to time in BPS Scheme 1983 therefore this Hon’ble graciously
direct the respondents to issued revised pay slips after
incorporating all revisions and increase in pay since 2005 to
the petitioners and arrears of the pay within thirty days.