Provisions of Law:
Telegraph Act, 1885.
3. Definitions. In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or contex,
(2) ‘telegraph officer’ means any person employed . either permanently or temporarily
in connection with a telegraph established, maintained or worked by the Federal
Government or by a person licensed under this Act;
(6) ‘telegraph authority’ means the Director-General, Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone
Department, and includes any officer empowered by him to perform all or any of the
functions of the telegraph authority under this Act;
THE CIVIL SERVANTS ACT, 1973
2. Definitions. —(1) In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or
context,—
(b) “civil servant” means a person who is a member of an All-Pakistan Service or of a civil
service of the Federation, or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the
Federation, including any such post connected with defence, but does not include—
(i) a person who is on deputation to the Federation from any Province or other
authority ;
(ii) a person who is employed on contract, or on work-charged basis or who is paid from
contingencies ; or
(iii) a person who is a “worker” or “workman” as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV
of 1934), or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923) ;
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923
(n) “workman” means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual
nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or
business) who is—
(i) a railway servant as defined in section 3 of the Railways Act, 1890 (IX of 1890), not
permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub-divisional office of a railway
and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, or
(ii) employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, whether the contract of
employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such
contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any parson
working in the capacity of a member of naval, military or air forces; and any reference to
a workman who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead, include a reference
to his dependants or any of them.
(2) The exercise and performance of the powers and duties of a local authority or of any
department 5 [acting on behalf of the Government] shall, for the purposes of this Act,
unless a contrary intention appears, be deemed to be the trade or business of such
authority or department.
Service Tribunals Act, 1973
The Legislature on 10-06-1997 inserted section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973
by promulgating the Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act (XVII of 1997) which read as
under:
“Service under any authority, corporation, body or organisation established by or
under a Federal Law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government
or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share or interest is hereby
declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under such
authority, corporation, body or organisation shall be deemed to be a Civil servant
for the purpose of this Act.”
Note: Sec 2-A was later on omitted by Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2010 and
was also declared ultra vires by the Apex Court in PLD 2006 SC 602/PLJ 2006 SC 1296
as reproduced below.
Case Law:
Maintainability of Writ Petition
2016 S C M R 1362
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Anwar Zaheer Jamali, C.J., Mian Saqib Nisar, Amir Hani Muslim, Ejaz Afzal
Khan and Mushir Alam, JJ
CIVIL REVIEW PETITIONS NOS.247 TO 249 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPEALS NOS. 239
TO 241 OF 2011
(Review of the judgment of this Court dated 7-10-2011 passed in C.As. Nos.239 to 241 of 2011)
AND
CIVIL PETITION NO. 423 OF 2011
(On appeal from the judgment of Islamabad High Court, Islamabad Dated 15-3-2011 passed in
W.P. No.4853 of 2010)
AND
CRL. MISC. AS. NOS. 871 TO 873 OF 2014 IN CRL. MISC. A. NO.533 OF 2012
(Impleadment applications)
P.T.C.L. and others---Petitioners
Versus
MASOOD AHMED BHATTI and others---Respondents
Civil Review Petitions Nos.247 to 249 of 2011 in Civil Appeals Nos.239 to 241 of 2011, Civil
Petition No. 423 of 2011 and Criminal Miscellaneous As. Nos. 871 to 873 of 2014 in Crl. Misc.
A. No. 533 of 2012, decided on 19th February, 2016.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI
Present: Mr. Justice Aziz-ur-Rehman Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
C.P No. D- 100 of 2013
Nafees Fatima Widow of Abid Hammad .………………..Petitioner
V/s
Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary, (IT&TD), Ministry of Information
Technology, Islamabad & 04 others …………………Respondents
C.P No. D- 101 of 2013
Syed Hasnain Raza .………………..Petitioner
V/s
Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary, (IT&TD), Ministry of Information
Technology, Islamabad & 04 others …………………Respondents
11. Mr. Zia ul Haq Makhdoom, the learned Counsel for the Respondent-PTCL argued
that it is not under the control of the Federal Government, hence, cannot be construed
as a person in terms of Article 199(5) of the Constitution, 1973. This contention of the
learned Counsel is misconceived as this question has been set at rest by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of PTCL and others Vs. Masood Ahmed Bhatti and
others [2016 SCMR 1362]……………………….
12. As per the profile of PTCL and the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of PTCL and others (supra) as well as in the case of Pir Imran Sajid and others
Vs. Managing Director/General Manager Telephone Industries of Pakistan and others
(2015 SCMR 1257), the instant petitions are maintainable…………
