2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

FAISAL ARAB, J.

Appellant's appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal was abated vide order 14.06.2010 holding that employees of PTCL do not enjoy the status of civil servants, therefore, they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal. The appellant filed restoration application, which was allowed on 09.01.2015 and appeal of the appellant was restored to its original number. Being aggrieved by the decision dated 09.01.2015, respondents filed Misc. Petition No. 36/2015 before the Service Tribunal, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 27.04.2015. While doing so, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Syed Tahir Abbas Shah v. OGDCL (2011 SCMR 1912). Hence, this appeal by leave of the Court.

2. The only point that was urged before us was whether the employees of PTCL, who were originally employees of Pakistan Telecommunication and Telegraph Department, their services were transferred to Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited and their terms and conditions of service by virtue of section 9 of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991 and then to Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited by virtue of section 35 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996 were fully protected, can they still be regarded as civil servants. A five member bench of this Court in the case of PTCL v. Masood Ahmed Bhatti (2016 SCMR 1362) has held that all that the above referred two enactments have done is that the terms and conditions of such transferred employees have been protected but they do not retain the status of civil servants anymore and for any violation of their terms and conditions of service they can invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution and not of the Federal Service Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of Muhammad Idrees v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others (PLD 2007 SC 681) in support of his case. In paragraph 14(c) whereof, it has been held that "the cases in which the services of the employees were governed by statutory rules are not hit by Mubeen-us-Salam's case." This case has no application to the present case as a five member bench of this Court in the case of PTCL v. Masood Ahmed Bhatti (2016 SCMR 1362) has specifically dealt with the status of those employees of a statutory corporation, who were originally civil servants and their services were transferred to a statutory corporation on the basis of a statute. In this five member bench decision, it was held as under:- "A fleeting glance at the provisions quoted above would reveal that the departmental employees on their transfer to the Corporation became employees of the Corporation under section 9 of the Act of 1991 and then of the Company under section 35 of the Act of 1996. Their terms and conditions of service were fully protected under section 9(2) of the Act of 1991 and 35(2) of the Act of 1996. None of the terms and conditions could be varied to their disadvantage as is provided by the sections reproduced above. Not only that the legislature also bound the Federal Government to guarantee the existing terms and conditions of service and rights including pensionary benefits of the transferred employees. Since they by virtue of the aforesaid provisions became employees of the Corporation in the first instance and then the Company, they did not remain Civil Servants any more. But the terms and conditions of their service provided by sections 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. Though in the cases of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation and another v. Riaz Ahmed and 6 others and Divisional Engineer Phones, Phones Division, Sukkur and another v. Muhammad Shahid and others (supra) it was held that the departmental employees on their transfer to the Corporation and then to the Company would continue to be the Civil Servants, but this interpretation does not appear to be correct as they on their transfer became employees of the Corporation under section 9 of the Act of 1991 and then of the Company under section 35 of the Act of 1996. Retention of their status as civil servants is thus not supported by the words used in the aforesaid provisions."

4. In view of the dicta laid down by this Court, this appeal has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed. MWA/I-16/SC Appeal dismissed.