Sunday, 22 September 2013

Are the employees of Statutory Corporation entitled for promotion?

PLJ 2004 Tr. C. (Services) 261 [Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad]
Present: nazar muhammad shaikh and hassan raza pasha, members
CENTRE, P.T.C.L and others-Appellants
PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD. through its Chairman, Islamabad and another-Respondents
Appeals Nos. 41(L)(CS), 42(L)(CS), 43(L)(CS), 44(L)(CS), 45(L)(CS), 46(L)(CS), 47(L)(CS), 48(L)(CS), 49(L)(CS), 50(L)(CS), 164(L)(CS), 165(L)(CS), 166(L)(CS), 167(L)(CS), 168(L)(CS), 169(L)(CS), 55(P)(CS), 56(P)(CS), 57(P)(CS), 58(P)(CS), 59(P)(CS), 60(P)(CS), 61(P)(CS), 62(P)(CS), 63(P)(CS), 64(P)(CS), 65(P)(CS), 66(P)(CS), 67(P)(CS), 68(P)(CS), 69(P)(CS), 70(P)(CS), 71(P)(CS), 72(P)(CS), 73(P)(CS), 74(P)(CS), 75CPXCS), 76(P)(CS), 77(P)(CS), 78(P)(CS), 78(P)(CS), 79(P)(CS), 80(P)(CS), 81(P)(CS), 82(P)(CS), 83(P)(CS), 84(P)(CS),

27KPXCS), 328(L)(CS), 509(R)(CS), 510(R)(CS), 527(R)(CS), 528(R)(CS),
529(R)(CS), 530(R)(CS), 531(R)(CS), 532(R)(CS), 533(R)(CS), 534(R)(CS),
535(R)(CS), 536(R)(CS), 537(R)(CS), 538(R)(CS), 539(R)(CS), 540(R)(CS)
541(R)(CS), 542(R)(CS), 543(R)(CS)/2001, &I0(R)(CS), 611(R)(CS) and    
612(R)/2002, decided on 22.0.2003.
Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (LXX of 1973)--
—S. 4-Employees of statutory corporation-Entitlement to promotion-
Essentials-Notification relating to promotion of employees of respondent
imply that according to rules of Telephone Operators, directed
recruitment was permissible in B.P.S 8 if applicant was intermediate or
had equivalent qualification and as Telephone Operator (B.F.S, 11} in
overseas Trunk Exchanges only if applicant was graduate or equivalent
and had qualified test in English language-Notification of 1995 allows
promotion to post of Telephone Operator in B.P.S. 8 to PTCL officials in
B.P.S. 5/7 if he was with four years lean service or intermediate  with one
year service. Promotion as Telephone Operators in EPS 11 was also
allowed to PTCL officials in BPS-8 and to provide they were intermediate
with four years unblemished service or Graduate with one year service-­
Two notifications shows that posts of Telephone Operators in BPS-11
were available to Telephone Operators in entire PTCL system whether
they were working in Overseas Trunk Exchange or elsewhere-
Notification of 1992 deals with direct recruitment and notification of 1995
deals with promotion-Both Notifications were amplified by notification
dated 22.5.1997-Promotion to B.P.S. 11 was available to Telephone
Operators over the entire system but by promotion on the conditions-
prescribed in notification dated 16.5.1995 and by direct recruitment only
to those who apply for the posts, in overseas *Trunk Exchange
(international gate way Exchange) provided they were Graduates and
qualify test in English language-Respondents were directed to examine
case of all appellants as well as other Telephone Operators in terms of
interpretation of Service Tribunal and consider those eligible for
promotion to B.P.S. 11 within period of six months from the date of
order.                                                                                     [P. 280] A
Mr. Farooq Awan, Advocate for Appellants in Appeals Nos. 41 to 49 and 164 to 169 (L) (CS)/2001.
Mr. Ilyas Monem, Advocate for Appellants in Appeals Nos. 55 to 84 (P) (CS)/2001 and 271 (P) (CS)/2002, and 610 to 612 (R) (CS)/2002.
Shaikh Khalid Hakim, Advocate for Appellants in Appeals Nos. 509 and 510 (R) (CS)/2001.
Mr. Shahzad Ahmad Malik, Advocate for Appellants in Appeals Nos. 527 to 534 (R)(CS)/2001.
Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Khan, Advocate for Appellant in Appeal No. 50 (L)(CS)/2001.

Sardar Zakir Hussain, Advocate for Respondents alongwith Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, Asst. Director Engg-ffl, Legal, P.T.C.L, M.T.R., Multan in. Appeals Nos. 509, 510 and 610 to 612 (R) (CS)/2001.
Mr. TousifAsif, Advocate for Respondents in Appeals Nos. 55 to 84
(P) (CS)/2001 and 271 (P) (CS)/2002.
Mian Nazir Azar, Advocate for Respondents in Appeals Nos. 529 to 543 (R) (CS)/2001.
Mr. Umar Sharif, Advocate for Respondents in Appeals Nos. 50,166 and 167 (L) (CS)/2001.
Date of hearing: 18.9.2003.
Hasan Raza Pasha, Member.--These appeals arise from denial of promotion to the appellants to BPS-11 by the respondents. In some of the cases the departmental appeals have been rejected and in other no response was received till after the expiry of statutory period of ninety days. Hence these appeals. All the appeals have the same facts with some personal variations and deal with the same legal issues and, therefore, will be disposed of by a common judgment.
2.         Briefly stated the facts in these cases are that the appellants are
working in the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. (PTCL) as
Telephone Operators (BPS-8) from different dates. Some of them are
Graduates,  and  some Intermediate and according to them fulfill the•
condition of experience to become eligible for promotion to BPS-11. One
Muhammad Akram a Telephone Operator in BPS-8, posted in Lahore, was
granted BPS-11 on 7.4.1997. The order of promotion was withdrawn on
27.9.1997. The said Muhammad Akram invoked the appellate jurisdiction of
the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) through Appeal No. 33(L)/98 dated
17.1.1998 which was decided in his favour vide FST Judgment dated
5.5.2QOO. The respondents in that case assailed the judgment of the FST
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court through Civil Petition No. 1727-L/2000
which was dismissed vide their judgment dated 27.7.2000 and the said
Muhammad Akram was consequently promoted to BPS-11. The present
appellants thereupon approached the respondents for considering them for
promotion in like manner. Some of them received a response rejecting their
departmental appeals whereas the others did not. They have, therefore,
approached the FST in appeal under Section 4, Service Tribunal Act, 1973.
3.         We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the
parties and examined the record.
4.         Appellants in Appeals Nos. 41 to 49 (L)(CS)/2001 and 164 to 169
(L)(CS)/2001 were represented by Mr. Muhammad Farooq Awan, Advocate,
appellants in Appeals Nos. 55 to 84 (P)(CS)/2001, 271 (P)(CS)/2002 and 610
to 612(R)(CS)/2002 were represented by Mr. Ilyas Monem, appellants in

Appeals Nos. 527 to 543 (R)(CS)/2U01 were lepiesented by Mr. Shahzad A, Malik and appellant in Appeal No. 50(L)U S)/2001 was represented by Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Khan, Advocat M. Farooq Awan, Advocate argued that the appellants he was representing were all Graduates and had the necessary length of service in BPS-8,and therefore, were entitled to be considered for promotion to BPS-11 He next argued that their cases are at par with that of Mr. Muhammad Akram, Mr.Ilyas Monem-t neal No. 33 (L)/98. He referred to. 1996 SCMR 1185 and argued that evenwithont resort to appeal before the FST the respondents should have been extended  the relief provided to Mr, Muhammad Akram. Mr. Ilyas Monem while-arguing on behalf of the appellants he represented, maintained that three cifitonations of the respondents relating to the subject of promotion of,telephone Operators are in the field and one of them has been cancelled."'He the notifications issued by the respondents fide their No CC/Mirt. dated 12,3,1992, No. CC/Misc. 4-3/92. E(l), dated 16.5.1995 a; ' K  RRR. 1-1/97, dated 22.5.1997, He added that the notification da ed 16.5 docs not speak of any distinction between the Telephone Operators in the international Gateway Exchanges and the rest. He argued that the notification of 16.5.1995 is applicable to all the Telephone Operators in BPS-8 and in support of his arguments he referred to the endorsement of this notification which was made to all Head of Units and Regions. He further argued that this notification was also calculated vide Endorsement No, SA/S-258/24, dated 2.9.2000. The learned counsel argued that this' noJification created a right for the Telephone Operators (BPS-8) to be considered for promotion to BPS-11 on fulfilling the condition of eligibility and that the right once created cannot be taken away by any subsequent order. The learned, counsel next argued that the appellants have been discriminated against, that even if it is conceded for the sake of argutient that promotion to BPS-11 on acquiring Bachelor Degree and having one year unblemished experience only entitles the Telephone Operators working in the International Gateway Exchanges, this rule has not been applied in r,he case of Mr. Muhammad Akram as there is no International Gateway Exchange in Lahore. He added that there were only three Gateway Exchanges in Pakistan, two in Islamabad and one in Karachi and yet the respondents have promoted eight Telephone Operators in Peshawar Region vids their Order No. S 1-18/Up- Gradation/11, dated 30.2.1998 to BPS-11. The learned counsel also produced a letter from General Manager, Lahore Telecommunication Region, dated 23.7.1997 which referred the question of applicability of the respondents notification dated 16.5.1995 and the response from the PTCL Headquarter dated 27.3.1998 which stated that the notification dated 16.5.1995 applied to all the Telephone Operators.
5, Mr. Shahazad A, Malik in addition to the arguments advanced by Mr. Ilyas Monem assailed the order passed in departmental appeal on the ground that it was a non-speaking order which was a violation of Section 24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, and that it disclosed that there was no application of mind by the respondents as they uncritically accepted the advice of the their legal Department. He next argued that no personal hearing was given to the appellants either. Learned Counsel for the appellant in Appeal No. 50 (L) (CS)/2001 Mr. M. Ramzan Khan also repeated the arguments advanced by Mr. Ilyas Monem, Advocate. He particularly stressed the argument that promotion of eligible Telephone Operators to BPS-11 is u vested right which cannot be denied by the respondents.
6.          All the learned counsel pleaded that since the appellants fulfilled
the qualifications for the grant of BPS-11 their appeals be accepted and a
direction be issued to the respondents in this behalf.
7.          The respondents were also represented in strength. Sardar Zakir
Hussain  represented the respondents  in respect of Appeals Nos.  509,
510(R)(CS)/2001 and 610 to 612 (R)(CS)/2002, Mr. Tausif Asif, Advocate
represented the respondents in Appeals Nos. 55 to 84 (P)(CS)/2001 and
271(P)(CS)/2001, Mian Nazir Azhar, Advocate represented the respondents
in 529 to 543(R)/(CS)/2001 and Mr. Umer Sharif, Advocate represented the
respondents in Appeals Nos. 50, 166 and 167 (L)(CS)/2001. The arguments
on behalf of the respondents can be summarized as below:--

(a)              That the FST have dismissed similar appeals in Appeals Nos.
31 to 34(R)(CS)/2001 vide their Judgment dated 23.6.2003 and
that all the issues addressed by the appellants in the instant
appeals   and   the   present   respondents,   who   were. also
respondents in those appeals, were discussed at length.
(b)              That   Akram's   case   is   distinguishable   from   that   of  the
appellants, in that it was a judgment in personem because the
grounds of accepting the appeal identified legal lacunae in the
procedure followed by the respondents in that appeal, that the
respondents in that appeal after having granted BPS-11 to the
said Muhammad Akram withdrew -it five months later without
due process of law i.e. without issuing Show-Cause Notice and
giving personal hearing and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
refused to interfere with the FST judgment solely on this
 That the respondents have already started the process of reversion of those illegally granted BPS-11 and even Muhammad Akram has been issued a notice to show-cause now on 18.7.2002 against reversion.
 That the notification dated 16.5.1995 omitted to mention that BPS-11 was admissible to Telephone Operators in International Gateway Exchange only. All the subsequent clarifications

issued by the respondents till as late as 2002 clarified this point and established this fact,
. (e) That the PTCL procedure is not very precise and that if any omission or error, in a notification is detected, it is removed by issuing clarifications without superseding the previous notifications. When the error and omission in the notification dated 16.5.1995 came to notice the notification dated 22.5.1997 was issued and that all the subsequent letters on the subject issued by the respondents confirms this position.
(f)                That the appellants have failed to go to the original notification
which   was   issued   in   1992   indicating   that   BPS-11   was
admissible   to   the   Telephone   Operators   in   International
Gateway Exchanges and that was the reason for confusion
which has triggered the present litigation.
(g)              That in the case of Muhammad Akram the respondents initially
made a mistake by granting him BPS-11 to which he was not
(h) That the principle of Locus poenitentiae is not applicable in the cases of the present appellants because none of the appellants was given BPS-11 and subsequent deprived.
(i) That the Government has a right to frame policies governing the terms and conditions of its employees and that the FST has no jurisdiction to interfere with such policy matters.
(j)    That the appeals were time-barred, and
(k) That the FST is barred from entertaining such appeals under Section 4(l)(b), Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
8.            In rebuttal the learned counsel argued that the notification of
16.5.1995 has not been cancelled and that none of the clarifications issued by
the respondents have said that there was any error in that notification, that
the principle of locus poenitentiae was not available to the respondents
because when a vested right is created it cannot be taken away without due
process of law, that notifications and clarifications did not have the same
standing that unless a notification is amended by another notification a
clarification about the same cannot take the place of notification, that there
is no administrative distinction among Telephone Operators because the
Telephone Operators in the International Gateway Exchange and the rest do
not constitute separate cadres and that any Telephone Operator is liable to
be transferred to the International Gateway Exchange.
9.            We have very carefully considered the arguments advanced on
behalf of the parties and also examined the record placed before us.

10.         We will at the very outset take up the issue of limitation. We are
not persuaded by the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents
about the delay in the filing of appeals because the learned counsel for the
respondents have not been able to identify the appeals in which delay has
occurred. Since the rights of the appellants relating to promotion have been
brought before us, we will exercise our discretion to condone the delay
wherever it has occurred.
11.         However, we recognize the force in the argument of the learned
counsel for the respondents about the application of the principle of locus
poemtentiae.  This principle could  have been  used in  respect of Mr.
Muhammad Akram's case and it was successfully done in appeal before the
learned FST in Appeal No. 33(L)/98. In the precedented appeal a right had
been created and it had come into being when Muhammad Akram was
promoted   to   BPS-11   on   7.4.1998   and   the   order   was   acted   upon,
Subsequently this right could not have been arbitrarily taken away and the
arbitrary action in that case was struck down. But in the case of instant.
appeals this right has not been created and none of the appellants has been
granted BPS-11.  Therefore, the  question of withdrawing any order of
promotion does not arise, nor that of application of the principle of locus
12.    We are also in agreement with the learned counsel for the
respondents that the case of Mr. Muhammad Akram is distinguished from
the present appeals, in that the ratio decidendi in that appeal was that Mr.
Muhammad Akram was deprived of BPS-11 without due process of law
whereas in the present appeals no such right has yet been created. We will
reproduce the relevant part of the said Judgment of the FST on which the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has also relied while dismissing the appeal of the
respondents therein:
"6. Admittedly the appellant was promoted and given Grade 11 on passing the BA Examination vide letter oated 7.4.1997. After over a span of five months the appellant was reverted from Grade-II to Grade-8 vide letter dated 27.9.1997 on the plea that those orders relate to Telephone Operators of Overseas (Gateway) having qualification prescribed therein. Before reversion no Show-Cause Notice was served upon the appellant as required under the law. Legally the orders once issued and acted upon cannot be withdrawn without due process of law. Moreover, neither the appellant has. committed any misconduct nor his service record is poor, therefore, the plea taken by the respondents that the orders relate to Telephone Operators of Overseas (Gateway) is not justified. In theses circumstances we accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 27.9.1997 and direct the respondents to promote the appellant to Grade II from the date when it was withdrawn."

The above para confirms the logic of the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents on this issue.
13,   As regards the appellants, there is force in the argument that
the FST has the jurisdiction to entertain these appeals and that the bar in
Section 4(l)(b) does not apply. We do not concede the appellant's view that
promotion is a vested right. But we do recognize the FST's jurisdiction to
scrutinize cases of promotion if these involve violation, or misinterpretation,
of the relevant rules.
14.      However,   we   notice   that   both   the   appellants   and   the
respondents have erred in their arguments before us while presenting their
respective case.  It was stressed on behalf of the appellants that three
notifications  namely.   No.  CC/Misc.  4-3/92.E  (I),  dated   12.3.1992,  No.
CC/Misc. 4-3/92.E(I), dated 16.5.1995 and No. RRR. 1-1/97, dated 22.5.1997
were in the field and that one of them has been cancelled, and, therefore, the
notification of 16.5.1995 has to be applied to all the Telephone Operators in
the respondent Company without any distinction. The respondents, on the
other hand, argued that the starting point was not the notification of 1995
but the notification of 1992. We find that learned counsel on behalf of the
appellants as well as respondents have failed to see that the starting'point
actually is 1988. We have before us a Notification No. E(l).l--ll/83, dated
10,8.1998. This notification supersedes a previous notification dated 7.2.1985
and is designed to amend the recruitment rules for the appointment of
Telephone Operators/Telegraphists/Teleprinter Operators/Telex Operators
(BPS-7) and lays down the method, qualifications and other conditions for
appointment to these posts. For the facility of understanding we reproduce
the said notification in full:-
Copy of Notification No. E. (D.I-11/83 dated 10th August, 1988 received from the Director General, T and T Islamabad, to the General Manager, L.T.R. Lahore and others.
In supersession of Notification of even number dated 7th February, 1985 the Director General, Telegraph and Telephone is pleased to amend the recruitment rules for the appointment of Telephone Operators/Telegraphists/Teleprinter Operators/Telex Operators (BPS-7) and to Say down the following method, qualification and other conditions for appointment to these posts in the Divisions/Offices etc. under the Telegraph and Telephone Department.
Recruitment to the vacancies shall be made by the following methods:

i'i) 50% of the vacancies shall he filled in by promotion from amongst departmental candidates in accordance with para-3 below.
iii) 40% of the vacancies shall be filled in by direct recruitment, in accordance with para-4 below.
'iii) 9% of the vacancies shall be filled in from amongst ex-service men having corresponding trade and training as prescribed for Telephone Operators/Telegraphists/Teleprinter Operators in the Department through interview by the relevant D.S.C. on receipt of an application.
(iv)  1% of the vacancies shall be filled in from amongst the disabled persons through Interview by the D.S.C.  on receipt of an • application provided they are otherwise found fit by the DSC for discharge of the duties of Telephone Operators/Telegraphists/ Teleprinter Operators/Telex Operators satisfactorily.
iv) If the number of qualified departmental candidates is less than the number of posts available for them the remaining vacancies will be filled by direct appointment and vice versa.
Note:-l In making appointment to the post from amongst outside candidates, preference will be given to the extent of 25% to Sons/Daughters, Grand Sons, Grand Daughters (Paternal and Maternal), dependant Brothers/Sisters and dependent Sons/Daughters of Brothers and Sisters of the departmental employees (In service or retired).
Note:-2 Composition of the cadre as a whole will be maintained in each Region on the basis of the prescribed quotas is subsequent recruitment.
Promotion to post in column 1 below shall be made through a departmental examination from amongst persons who hold the posts specified in column 2 and possess qualification and experience prescribed in column 3 below:-

Name of post
Person eligible

Condition of eligibility
1. Telephone
i.   Must        have        completed
officials below
not   less   than   four   years
(BPS 7)
Scale; B-7 in the
unblemished service.


Division in which
li. Departmental        candidates

the post is to be
who   are   Matriculate   must

have one year unblemished



Telegraphist/ Teleprinter Operator/ Telex/Operator

All employes of the T&T Department who hold the posts below BPS-7 in the Telegraph Offices and ORO's in which the post is to be filled.

i. Must have completed not less than 4 years unblemished service.
ii. Departmental
candidates who are Matricu­
late must have one year unb­
lemished                       service.
departmental               persons
appointed prior to the issuance of this Notification are also eligible to appear in the departmental test prov­ided they fulfil Condition No. (i) above.

A candidate must possess educational qualifications and experience and must be within the age limit as mentioned in the schedule to this Notification.
Provided that maximum age limit will be relaxed by three years in the case of candidates belonging to scheduled casts, Buddhist Community, recognized tribes of the Tribal Areas, Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas (District of Gilgit, Baltistan, Ghizar, Skardu, Diamir and Ghanche) in accordance with the instructions issued by the Establishment Division.
The required number of the candidates against the quota for direct recruitment will be selected by the Departmental Selection • Committee through interview out of a provisional merit list of applicants prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the academic examination in accordance with the following criteria:-
(i)    200 marks at the rate of 2 marks for each one percent obtained in Matriculation Examination.
(ii)   50 marks at the rate of one mark for each two percent numbers obtained in International Examination.
(iii) 25 marks at the rate of one mark for each four percent numbers obtained in Degree Examination.
The final merit list will be compiled by the D.S.C. after verification of relevant documents and adding marks assessed by

them for clarify of speech, correctness of pronunciation and dexterity for operating hoards/TPs(Maximum 25 marks).
Preference will be given to female candidates to the extent of 5% of the posts against the direct quota in District/Provincial Headquarters. In case required number of female candidates do not apply, the remaining requirement will be filled in by male candidates in order of merit (for I.G. Es. Trunk Exchanges Lahore and Karachi). L.T.Os shall be recruited as for as possible).
The appointing authority will depute the candidates selected against the quota for direct recruitment (including disabled persons) and departmental promotion to undergo the prescribed course of training fixed for each category of above mentioned posts. If any candidate does not quality the examination at the end of the training
 course in the first attempt he/she will be allowed a second chance to clear the said examination as a special case but he/she will lose his/her seniority to the successful officials of his/her batch. Direct recruits who fail in the second attempt will be removed from service while those who are departmental employees will be converted to
. their original/substantive appointment. Already trained ex-servicemen will not be required to undergo training.
On successful completion of training the candidates (departmental and outsider both) will be appointed as Telephone Operators/Telegraphists/Teleprinter Operators/Telex Operators on probation for a period of one year in the office/Division to which they have been allotted. Their appointment for probation shall be subject to Article 6 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.
Seniority in the cadre of Telephone Operator/Telegraphists/ Teleprinter Operator/Telex Operator will be determined According to the order of merit obtained in the training course at the Training School/Centre. Candidates recruited against departmental quota will rank senior as a batch over the direct recruits of the same year. Ex-Servicemen will have their own inter-se seniority and will be eligible for promotion against their quota in higher post.
(AHMED JAMAL). Chief Engineer (Staff and Estt).
No. Staff/All-20/II/13                           Dated at Lahore, the 09.1988
Copy is forwarded for information and necessary action please.

1. 2, 3.

All Directors in L.T.Tt. Lahore.
All Divisional Engineers in L.T.R. Lahore.
Chief Supdt. C.T.O. Lahore,
Assistant General Manager (S).
Lahore Telecomm: Region Lahore,
'^SCHEDULE (See Para-4)

Designation and Grade of the post
Qualifications and Experience
Age Limit
Maximum         Minimum

'Telephone Operator/ Telegraphist /Teleprinter Operator/Telex Operator (BPS-7)
Matriculates or equival­ent qualification from a recognized Board of Secondary Education.
25 years 17 years
Syllabus for qualifying test for departmental candidates for recruitment as Telephone Operators/Telegraphists/Teleprinter Operators/ Telex Operators.
1.     English............................ 2 Hours................. Marks.
(a)              Simple passage from a departmental publication to be'
copied out in a neat and eligible hand.
(b)              Simple passage from a departmental publication or a
circular to be translated in Urdu.                                  100
(c)              An application to a superior officer.
(d)              Simple Grammar.

2.                   Simple arithmetic mainly consisting of questions of Addition
and   subtraction,   cross   totaling   and   simple   questions   of
multiplication and deviation, percentage.........2 Hours.          100
3.                    Geography and General Knowledge.......... 2 Hours

(a)      Geography with special reference to Pakistan              (50)
(b)              General    knowledge    foreign    situation    of   countries,
Important Towns, Their Importance, Capitals, Currencies
and air, sea and land routes.                                          50

            1-         The papers at 3 (a) and 3 (b) may be answered in Urdu.
 2- Paper in Geography and General Knowledge would also contain questions with which official would have to deal in the course of their duties.
(3)      Minimum qualifying marks will be 33% in each paper. Xo:-3 (D-ll/83 Dated at Islamabad the 10th August, 1998".
15. This single notification prescribes a method of appointment and shows that 50% of the vacancies have to be filled by promotion and 50-% by direct recruitment and this category has been further sub-divided. The procedure for promotion is outlined in para-3 ibid and procedure for direct recruitment is outlined in para-4. Both the paras are followed by separate schedules indicating the designation of the posts, qualifications and experience required for the post and age limits. The error made by both the parties in the instant appeals is that they have failed to see in the notification dated 12.3.1992 that it amends the rules notified on 10.8.1988 only to the extent of direct recruitment i.e. para 4 and its schedule. This notification reads as follows:-
Headquarters Kamran Centre Blue Area, Islamabad.
No. CC/Misc. 4-3/92. E(I)              Islamabad the 12th March, 1992.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 20 of the PTC Act, 1991 and in continuation of Notification No. E.(I).l-ll/83 dated 10th August 1988, the c jmpetent authority is pleased to amend the recruitment rules for the appointment of Telephone Operators (BPS-
7) as'given below:-
Insert in Schedule (para-4) columns 1 and 2, as under:-

1     .
(a)Telephone Operator (BPS-8)         j       (a)  Intermediate or equivalent quaiifi-  j
cation from a recogni/.ed Board of i Secondary Education/University.     

(b)Telephone Operator (BPS-11) ' In Overseas Trunk Exchanges

(b) Graduate or equivalent qualifica­tion from a recognized University with a test in English language.

(MUHAMMAD HANIF AZAM) Chief Engineer (Recruitment, Rules and Regulations)
The General Manager,
Overseas Telecommunication Region,
. No. CC/Misc. 4-3/92. E(I).            Islamabad the 12th March, 1992.
Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to:-
1.                   ALL HEADS OF REGIONS/UNITS.
2.                   P.S. TO CHAIRMAN.
(MIAN RAHMUL QAIDR) Director C.C. (O&S)"
This notification shows in Column 1 of the schedule that Telephone Operators can be recruited directly in general in BPS-8 and in BPS-11 only' in Overseas Trunk Exchanges. The qualification and experience for these two categories are given in Column 2. At this stage in 92, the position was that as per notification of 88, appointment of Telephone Operators by promotion would be in BPS-7, but direct recruitment could be made in terms of the above notification of 1992 to BPS-8 and BPS-11.
16. Then notification dated 16.5.1995 came which relates only to promotion to the post of Telephone Operators and amends the notification dated 10.8.1988 to the extent of para-3 which deals with promotion. The said notification reads as follows:--
HQRS. Kamran Centre Blue Area, Islamabad.
No. CC/Misc. 4-3/92. Ed)                 Islamabad the 16th May, 1995.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 20 of the PTC Act, 1991 the competent authority is pleased to amend in the rules issued vide this office No. E(I). 1-11/83 dated at Islamabad 10th August, 1988 for the appointment of Telephone Operator in BPS-8 and 11 as given below:-

Insert in Schedule (para-8) columns 1, 2 and 3, as under:-


2    '
a    Teleohone
PTC Officials in
Matriculate    and    should
'Operator (BPS-8)
BPS-5 to 7.
have   completed   4   years unblemished    service     in

the cadre


Intermediate   and   should

have completed  one year unblemished service in the

(b) Telephone Operator (BPS-11)
PTC Officials in BPS-8 to 10.
Intermediate   and   should have completed 4 years un­blemished   service   in   the



Graduate and should have

completed one year unblem­ished service in the cadre.
(ZAFAR ALICHAUDHARY) Chief Engineer (Recruitment, Rules and Regulations)
.   No. CC/Misc. 4-3/92. E(I). pt.           Islamabad the 16th May, 1995.
Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to:-
This notification allows promotion to PTCL officials in BPS-5 to 7 as Telephone Operators in BPS-8 provided they have the requisite experience and qualifications prescribed in Column-3 of the Schedule and it also prescribes the criteria for promotion to BPS-11 to which the PTCL officials in BPS-8 to 10 ar« entitled provided they fulfil the eligibility criteria given in Column-3. So through this notification all Telephone Operators in the System become eligible for promotion to BPS-8 and BPS-11 subject to the conditions of eligibility. The notification dated 22.5.1997 only elaborates

these two notifications as has heen indicated in para 3 ibid. This notification reads as follows:--
"PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION Headquarters Kamran Centre, Jinnah Avenue,

No. RRR. 1-1/97           .   .               Islamabad the 22nd May, 1997
NOTIFICATION The competent authority has been pleased to approve the following: -
(a)              Graduate    Telephone    Operators    (BPS-7/9)    of   Overseas
(Gateway) should be given BPS-11 w.e.f. 1.1.1995 subject to the
condition that they were Graduate on 1.1.1995, they shall be
given BPS-11 with effect from the date they passed their
examination of Graduation.
(b)              Similarly those Telephone Operators, working in BPS-7/9 in
Overseas    Divisions    (Gateway)    who    had    Intermediate
qualification on 1.1.1995 and have 4 years experience shall be
given BPS-11 w.e.f. 1.1.1995. Otherwise this facility shall be
given to them with effect from the date they passed their
examination    of    Intermediate    afterwards    and    required
experience of 4 years.
2.   However, these facilities-shaH-be-subjected to handling of atieast
40 (forty) matured calls by the each Telephone Operator per'shift.
Continuous failure in meeting this performance standard may result
   to reversion to their substantive scale.
3.   This is with reference to the earlier notifications issued vide No.
CC/Misc. 4-3/92. E(I) dated 12.3.1992 and 16.6.1995.
(M. SIYAR KHAN) Director (Rules and Regulations)"
It shows how the Telephone Operators who are Graduate and are working in the Overseas Exchange and those who are Intermediate, and similarly working in Overseas Exchange and are in BPS-7/9 have to be given BPS-11 with effect from 1.1.1995.
17. Various clarifications to\which the learned counsel for both the parties have referred in the course of their arguments take account of the distinct import of the three notifications. Th& learned counsel for the appellant referred to a letter from General Manager, Lahore Telecom: Region dated 23,7.1997 and the reply of the PTCL Headquarters dated 27.3.1998 thereto. We reproduce both the letters:-

The Chief Engineer (RR&R),
P.T.C.L. Headquarters,                    ,
No. SA/S-258/6                                      Dated at Lahore, 23.7.1997
CBA Union representatives of this Region has supplied a copy of your Letter No. CC/Misc. 4-3/92.E(I) Pt. dated 16.5.1995 regarding appointment of Telephone Operators in (BPS-8 and 11). The Original letter referred to above does not appear to have been received in this Region. You are requested to kindly provide a original copy of this letter.
CBA Union representative of this Region are also demanding
that all the Telephone Operators presently in service and who fulfill
pre-conditions for appointment of Telephone Operators in (BPS-8
and 11) referred in Letter No. CC/Misc. 4-3/92.E(I) pt dated
16.5.1995 may be promoted/adjusted in higher Grades for which
they fulfill basic academic and other conditions. This being policy
matter needs decision at Headquarters level and it is requested that
necessary instructions regarding action to be taken at the Regional
level may kindly be communicated.                        .             . ..
It is also mentioned for necessary consideration at your level that all the posts in the cadre of Telephone Operators in LTR are of BPS-7 and in case the demand of the union representatives is acceded to as a policy matter, decision may, please be given as to whether the post of Telephone Operator in BPS-7 needs upgradation to that of BPS-8/11 at PTC HQ.level or not.
No. CC/Misc. 4-3/92. E(I) Pt.                               DATED 27.3.1998

Kindly refer to your Letter No. SA/S-258/6 dated 23.7.1997 regarding promotion of Telephone Operator in BPS-8 and 11 in '   accordance with PTCL H/Q's Notification No. CC/Misc. 4-3/92. E(I) dated 16.5.1995.
2.         Above mentioned letter of Pakistan Telecommunication
Company Ltd. H/Q was forwarded to all the regions. However, copy
of the same is again enclosed, as desired.
3.         Rule position vide above letter is clear and PTCL officials
working in BPS-7 and 8-10 who fulfill the conditions prescribed in
Column-II are eligible for promotion to the post of Telephone
Operator (BPS-8 to BPS-11) respectively.
Sd/-DIRECTOR (Respondent-ID"
18. These letters relate only to the notification of 1995, which covers the Telephones Operators all over the system. The clarifications to which the learned counsel for the respondents have referred relate to the notifications of 1992 and 1997 and deal specifically with the case of Telephone Operators in Overseas Trunk Exchange. We will reproduce the various letters on which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents
No. RRR.I&I/97                                                    Dated 10.11.1997
Kindly refer to your Letter No. S-I-18/Up-Grade/8 dated 14.10.1997 on the above subject.
2. PTCL H/Q's Letter No. 1-1/97 dated 22.8.1997 is self-explanatory which explicitly entails that its provision applies to Telephone Operators of all Overseas Gateway exchanges.
The General Manager, NTR-I, PESHAWAR."
2004                          muhammad rafiq v. P.T.C.L.        Tr.C. 279
[Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad}
'   No, RRR.6-13/98                                  Dated 4th September, 1998.
The undersigned is directed to refer your Letter No. S.I-31/46 dated 20.8.1996 on the subject cited above and to clarify that the graduate Telephone Operator in question should be granted BPS-11 w.e.f. the date they joined the Gateway/Overseas Exchange with the condition that they shall handle at least 40 matured calls per shift, failing which they shall be reverted to their substantive posts/scale.
(S. Manzoor Hussain Bukhari)
Assistant Director (Recruitment)
Tele: No. 818621
The General Manager,
Northern Telecom: Region (NTR), Peshawar.

No. RRR: 1-1/97                                                      Dated 6.3.2002
In continuation of this office Notification of even number dated 22.5.1997 it is clarified that it is applicable to only Telephone Operators working in IGE under the control of Overseas Telecom Region:
The General Manager, Overseas Telecom: Region Karachi.
There obviously is no confusion in sofar as these letters are concerned. The problem has arisen because appellants as well as respondents have erred in not reading the three notifications together.

19.     The learned counsel for the respondents  has  referred to
judgment of the letter FST in Appeals Nos. 31 to 34 (R)(CS)/2001 whereby
appeals with similar prayer as in the instant appeals were dismissed. We
most humbly disagree with the findings and conclusions of our learned
colleagues. This judgment is based on similar arguments as have been
advanced before us on behalf of both the appellants and the respondents.
Eversince this litigation started with Appeal No. 33(L)/98 there has been a
mis-reading   of  the   various   notifications.   Read   in   perspective   these
notifications imply that according to the r.ecruitment rules of Telephone
Operators direct recruitment is permissible in BPS-08 if the applicants is
Intermediate or has equivalent qualification and as Telephone Operator
(BPS-11) in Overseas Trunk Exchanges only if the applicant is Graduate or.
equivalent and qualifies test in English language. The notification of 1995
allows promotion to the, post of Telephone Operator in BPS-8 to PTCL
officials in BPS 5/7 if he .is Matriculate with four years clean service or
Intermediate with one years service. It also allows promotion as Telephone
Operators in BPS-11 to PTCL officials in BPS-8 and 10 provided they are
Intermediate with four years unblemished service of Graduate with one year
service. Combined reading of the two notifications shows that the posts of
Telephone Operators in BPS-11 are available to the Telephone Operators in
the entire PTCL system whether they are working in Overseas Trunk
Exchange   or   elsewhere.   The   notification  of   1992   deals  with   direct
recruitment and the notification of 1995 deals with promotion. Both the
notifications were amplified by the notification dated 22.5.1997.
20.    The above discussion should make it clear to the respondents
that BPS-11 is available to the Telephone Operators over the entire system
but by promotion on the conditions prescribed in the notification dated
16.5.1995, and by direct recruitment only to those who apply for the posts in
Overseas Trunk Exchange (International Gateway Exchange) provided they
are Graduate and qualify test in English language.
21.          Therefore, we direct that the respondents examine the case of all
the appellants as well as other Telephone Operators in terms of paras 15-16
and 19-20 supra and consider, those found eligible, for promotion to BS-11
within a period of six months from the date of this order. The appeals are
disposed of accordingly.
22.          No order as to costs.
23.          Parties be informed.
.   (A.A.).                                                                             Order accordingly.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Contact International Lawyer

If you have any queries related with this post you can contact at

Salman Yousaf Khan
International Lawyer