1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

C.P.L.A No.__________ -Q of 2019

Asad Mehmood S/o Muhammad Akram

Accounts officer (BPS-17), Office B.M. Central Quetta, PTCL
Zarghoon Road Quetta----------------------------------PETITIONER

VERSUS
1. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary,
Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication
(IT & Tele-com Division), 4th, Floor, Evacuee Trust Complex,
Agha Khan Road, F-5/, Islamabad.

2. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd through its

President & CEO, Block E, PTCL H/Qrs, Sector G-8/4,
Islamabad.

3. General Manager (HRO), PTCL H/Qrs, Sector G-8/4,

Islamabad.

4. The Senior Manager Human Resources & Business Partner,

Quetta Telecom Region (QTR), Quetta………..RESPONDENTS

PETITION: CIVIL PETITION UNDER ARTICLE-185(3) OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC
OF PAKISTAN, 1973 FOR THE GRANT OF
LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED 20-02-2019 PASSED BY THE HIGH
COURT OF BALOCHISTAN QUETTA IN C.P.
NO. 1004/2018

Respectfully sheweth:

This Petitioner seeks leave to Appeal against the Impugned

Order dated 20-02-2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Balochistan, Quetta, in C.P. No. 1004/2018 in serious violation
of law thus causing this Petitioner irreparably and irretrievably
perpetual prejudiced. The Hon’ble High Court through its order
dated 20-02-2019 has reversed the settled law thereby ceasing
 2

the fundamental rights of the Petitioner enshrined under Arts.

4, 10-A, 18, 25 and 199 of the Constitution. That the Petitioner
has legal grievances and his substantive fundamental rights
have been jeopardized by the Order dated 20-02-2019, hence
prefer this appeal.

A. The following points of law arise for determination.

LAW POINTS

a. Whether the learned double Bench of High Court of

Balochistan has abided by due process and passed
speaking order while dismissing the petition declaring non-
statutory PTCL Service Regulations-1996 lawful?

b. Whether ignoring and failure to abide the dictum laid down

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has no effect of violation of
judicial discipline and not violation of Arts. 189 and 190 of
the Constitution is sustainable in the eyes of law while
dismissing the petition filed under Art. 199 of the
Constitution?

B. That the facts necessary for the appreciation of the case

are as under:-

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. That the petitioner employee No. EPI No. 10030252, joined

Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation under Sec. 8 of
the PTC Act, 1991 on 31-12-1991 [before creation of PTCL
under Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 34 of the P.T. (Re-Organisation)
Act, 1996]. His terms and conditions of service as settled
at the time of initial appointment governed under the PTC
Service Regulations defined under Sec 2 (g) were framed
by way of subordinate legislation under Sec. 20 read with
Sec 8 (2) of the PTC Act, 1991 are statutory for all the
purposes.
 3

2. The Government under the veil of the company transferred

Government Department into its instrumentality under
Sec.34 of the P.T. (Re-Organization) Act, 1996 having
majority shares of 62%.

3. That on 01-01-1996, after creation of PTCL, the

petitioner’s terms and conditions of service and rights
being a transferred employee (the telecommunication
employees as per definition under Sec 2 (t) of the Act) are
statutory protected under P.T. (Re-Organization) Act, 1996
and guaranteed by the Federal Government under Sec.
35(2) & 36 (1, 2 & 5) as public policy. The question of
terms and conditions of service settled at the time of initial
appointment were statutory, governed by the rules and
regulations framed under Civil Servant Act, 1973 has been
decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case law
reported at pages 2012 SCMR 152 & 2016 SCMR 1362.

4. That the Respondents having malafide intentions to fulfill

their nefarious designs and personal vendetta issued
Charge Sheet No. S.23-39/2017 dated 23-07-2018 to drag
the Petitioner into false and fabricated disciplinary
proceedings under non-statutory PTCL Service
Regulations-1996 to change his relationship to master-
servant.

5. That in the case of the Petitioner, the Respondents had no

jurisdiction under law to initiate action under non-statutory
PTCL Service Regulations-1996. PTCL Service Regulations-
1996 has no legal backing thus not a statutory instrument
as this issue already settled by the Supreme Court.

6. That without taking into consideration the express

provisions of law pertaining to the petitioner, the
 4

respondents blindly applied their own non-statutory

Company rules upon the petitioner thus their acts and
action are opposed to public policy with predetermined
mind are guilty of misrepresenting, false representing,
deceiving, doing fraud upon statue to rescind and undo the
statutory protection and guarantee of terms and conditions
of service and rights granted to the Petitioner under the Act,
1996.

7. Violation of Fundamental Rights: That the respondents’

departmental authorities have violated the law thus
breaching the fundamental rights of the Petitioner
enshrined under Arts., 4, 10-A, 18 and 25 of the
Constitution. Under the circumstances, as the case relates
to the fundamental rights, the petitioner has only and only
remedy to knock door of the High Court under Art. 199 of
the Constitution.

8. That the High Court through its order dated 20-02-2019

has altered the statutory protected terms and conditions of
service and rights of this petitioner under the P.T. (Re-
Organization) Act, 1996.

9. That the High Court has made erroneous

reading/assumption of premise in para No.9 granting non-
statutory PTCL Service Regulation-1996 prevailing as
against statutory rules in the said Order as under
[underlined by the petitioner to stress]:
“….It is an established principle that mere mentioning
of wrong provision of Law and Rules is no way
vitiates the proceedings, as necessary rectification can
be made at any stage of the proceedings….”
 5

10. That no other petition for leave has been filed before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court against Order date 20-02-2019
passed in C.P. No. 1004 of 2018.

C. Hence this Petition for leave to appeal is filed on the

following amongst other grounds:
GROUNDS OF PETITION

1. That the terms and conditions of service and vested rights

of the petitioner who was transferred to PTCL under forced
operation of law with the distinct status under Sec. 2(s)/(t)
of the Act, 1996 as “Telecommunication Employees”
(transferred employees), were duly protected and
guaranteed under Section 35(2) and 36(1), (2)& (5) of
Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996
as “Public Policy” cannot be altered by the respondents
without consent of the “Transferred Employees” and
award of appropriate compensation or without legislation.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has already settled this issue
in the judgment 2012 SCMR 152 & 2016 SCMR 1362
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded that
terms and conditions of service are governed by sections 3
to 22 of the Civil Servant Act, 1973.

2. That the terms & condition of service of the Petitioner are

statutory. Reliance is placed on:-

i. PTCL vs Zahid 2010 SCMR 253 rel pg. 268 para # 15

ii. PTCL vs Tariq Mehmood C.A. 576/2007 (unreported)

iii. Khalid Mehmood vs GOP C.A.230-L/2015 (unreported)

iv. Nasiruddin Ghori vs FOP & 4 others 2010 CLC 323 rel pg.
345 & 346
 6

v. PTCL vs Federation of Pakistan etc. I.C.A. # 497/2015

(Islamabad) rel para # 5. The respondents filed CPLA No.
4426/2017 which has been dismissed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. (unreported)

vi. Shaikh Muhammad Suleman vs PTCL & another SBLR

2019 Sindh 418. The Hon’ble Court was pleased to
observe in para No.2 as under [underlined by the advocate
to stress]: -

“Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had

worked in the respondent No.1 Corporation from
1992 as transferred employee…..”

Second last para on pg. #427:-

“This decision in our view is quite distinguish

from the facts obtaining in the instant matter as
in the present admittedly the petitioner was a
regular employee of the PTCL and the
Government Servants Efficiency & Disciplinary
Rules, 1973, as adopted by PTCL as well as the
Government Servants (Conduct) rules 1964, has
put an embargo upon the employees to
participate in the Local Bodies Elections, which if
violated, would definitely in our view fall within
the ambit of misconduct, as defined under the
Government Servants (conduct) rules 1964.”

3. That the said charge sheet issued to the petitioner under

non-statutory PTCL Service Regulations-1996 is
discriminatory and opposed to public policy. Reliance is
placed on Muhammad Masihuzzaman vs Federation of
Pakistan and another PLD 1992 Supreme Court 825.
 7

4. That the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner

(Transferred Employee) was to be initiated under
Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973, whereas the
respondents carried disciplinary proceedings under non-
statutory PTCL Service Regulations-1996, which is of no
legal effect and violates the legislative intents and in such
situation Petition in High Court is entertainable and relief
can be granted. Reliance is placed on case law Shakeel
Ahmed vs PTCL & others SBLR 2016 Sindh 1836.

5. Grave Illegality floating on the face of the Order dated

20-02-2019: The impugned Charge Sheet No. S.23-
39/2017 dated 23-07-2018 served upon the Petitioner
under non-statutory PTCL Service Regulations-1996 by
the respondents has caused to change relationship to
master and servant thus breaching the fundamental
rights enshrined under the Constitutional provisions as
under: -

i. Deprived protections and guarantees under Act,

1996

ii. Deprived protection of law Art. 4

ii. Deprived right of fair trial Art. 10-A

iii. Deprived freedom of trade, business or profession

Art. 18

iv. Deprived equality of citizen Art. 25

v. Deprived swift remedy under Art. 199 to invoke writ

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

vi. Disobey and disrespect of dictum laid down by

Superior Courts. Violation of Arts. 189, 190 & 201.

vii. Disobey and disrespect of the command of the

Constitution in view of Art 5(2).
 8

6. That as the act and actions of respondents issuing the

said charge sheet under non-statutory PTCL Service
Regulations-1996 is without jurisdiction, illegal and void
ab-initio therefore, all the subsequent acts and actions are
also illegal and void and as per settled law, the
superstructure build on an illegal and void order is bound
to fall on the ground. Reliance is placed on:-

i. Muhammad Mustafa vs Syed Azfar Ali & 3 others PLD

2014 Sindh 224, it has been observed:
“…..that where things have not been done in the manner,
as required by the law and procedure, the same cannot be
given legal sanctity particularly when the same are
resulting in penal consequences or causing rights of an
individual,…”

ii. Ghulam Fareed vs divisional Canal officer, Western Bar

canal division Thingi District Vehari and another 2007 YLR
2179 , it has been observed:
“---All the subsequent proceedings conducted being
outcome of a void order, were also void and not
sustainable……”

7. That the High Court has not applied correct law

considering section 2(s)/(t) of the Act, 1996, the case has
not been considered in its true perspective and neither
discussed nor decided on legal reasoning has resulted not
only in miscarriage of justice but depriving the petitioner
of his valuable vested constitutional, legal and statutory
rights.

8. That the learned Double Bench has erred in

discriminating between “Telecommunication Employees”
defined under Section 2 (s)/(t) of the Act, 1996 travelling
beyond the law.
 9

9. That the learned Double Bench has erred in dismissing

petition on the ground of mere mentioning wrong law
whereas PTCL Service Regulations-1996 have no legal
backing as settled by Superior Courts. The learned
Division Bench has altered adversely the terms and
conditions of service of this petitioner in disregard of
constitutional protection of freedom of business and
profession in terms of Art. 18 of the Constitution, ignoring
Section 35 & 36 of the P.T. (Re-Organisation) Act, 1996,
disregarding dictum laid down by Supreme Court reported
at page number 2012 SCMR 152 & 2016 SCMR 1362.

10. That the learned Double Bench has ignored and not
considered the law and rules regulating disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner.

11. That the learned Double Bench has disregarded the

direction of Apex Court and failed to appreciate legal plane
of the case. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in
the settled cases, are squarely applicable to this case. It
was thus binding on the High Court to take action
accordingly hence failure has caused serious prejudice to
the Petitioner.

12. That the High Court has lost sight of the facts for the
reason that of non-reading and mis-reading of supporting
case laws has caused a complete failure of justice.
Abrupt conclusions drawn by the learned double Bench in
the entire exercise making justice a casualty that cannot
stand the test of scrutiny but also lack judicious approach
and objective consideration thus miserably failed in
exercise of the power entitled to reach injustice wherever it
is found.
 10

13. That the High Court has caused miscarriage of justice by

not given any weight and consideration at all to such
matter to the material case facts, pleadings, law and case
laws cited by the counsel of the Petitioner to come to the
findings. The impugned Order is liable to be set aside
because the laboured attempt made disposing of the
petition on the basis of their own subjective mind without
due process to arrive at its own conclusion, wholly
unwarranted under law.

14. That the decision does not disclose a proper application of

mind of the learned Double Bench to the merits of case
that was before them. No application of mind shown at all
thus failure to discuss the case laws quoted and noted
during the course of arguments is violation of judicial
discipline and is violation of Arts. 189 and 190 of the
Constitution thus the learned Division Bench has
committed serious error by disposing the petition without
correct appreciation of law involved in the matter therefore
is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

15. That doing justice is the paramount consideration and

that duty cannot be abdicated or diluted and diverted by
undertaking manipulative exercise. That High Court while
pronouncing Order on the cause brought before it did not
enforce law and did not administer justice and turned the
mind/attention of the court away from the truth of the
cause before it, in disregard of its duty to prevent
miscarriage of justice. There was no reason for the High
Court to come to the conclusion of its own without
concrete basis and that too merely on surmises and
conjectures. The dismissal of the petition declaring
grounds in para # 10 are unmerited and based on tainted
and tailored observations, erroneous assumptions, non-
 11

reading and misreading of pleadings, improper and non

application of law, without adhering to provisions of law
and departure from undisputed construction of law and
suffer from serious infirmities, thus no sanctity or
credibility can be attached and given to the so-called
findings. There is, therefore, every justification to call for
interference in this Petition as the said Order of the High
Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

16. That the Constitution is fundamental and paramount law

of the nation. The disobedience to the Constitution by
Respondents has resulted in tyranny. The respondents are
totally dysfunctional therefore seek to impose their own
preferences as higher than the Constitution and law. This
Hon’ble Court had a duty and an obligation to take
serious cognizance of such acts of public authority that
may lead to constitutional breakdown with disastrous
consequences thus not permissible by any Court in
Pakistan. The respondents had failed to meet the
obligations that the Constitution or other laws impose
upon them, or acts in a violent way that causes serious
injuries to the petitioner, therefore this Hon’ble Court is
duty bound to take the necessary measures that forcibly
bind the respondents to such obligations.

17. That the impugned Order is liable to set aside being

against the fundamental rights enshrined under Arts. 4, 9,
10-A, 18, 25 and 199 the Constitution, the law and the
material facts of the case. The entire approach of the High
Court suffers from serious infirmities, its conclusions
lopsided and lacks proper or judicious application of
mind. Arbitrariness is found in the approach as well as
the conclusions arrived at in the said Order under
challenge, in unreasonably keeping out relevant case laws
 12

from being brought on record is patently erroneous,

perverse and are totally against the settled principle of
law.

18. That further grounds may be raised at the time of

arguments.
PRAYERS

The Petitioner therefore humbly prays that

1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court may be most graciously

pleased to grant leave to appeal against the Order dated
20-02-2019 passed by the High Court of Balochistan at
Quetta in C.P. No. 1004 of 2018, set aside the impugned
order, and grant such relief as may be deemed fit, proper
and just in the circumstances of the case and

2. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to suspend operation

of the impugned order dated 20-02-2019 till disposal of
the instant appeal.

Quetta
Dated: -04-2019
Drawn & filed by

(Asad Mehmood)
Petitioner in Person

CERTIFICATE
Certified that it is the first petition filed by the petitioner before
this Hon’ble Court against the Order dated 20-02-2019 passed
in C.P. No. 1004 of 2018, passed by the division Bench of High
Court of Balochistan, Quetta.

(Asad Mehmood)
Petitioner in Person