' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.--- The petitioners in these several Writ connected petitions bearing Writ Petition No,12584Petition No,13138 of 2008, Writ Petition No,12027 Petition N6.12005 of 2008, Writ Petition No,12591 Petition No,12635 of 2008, Writ Petition No,13536 Petition No,14252 of 2008, and Writ Petition No,13869 of 2008 were all employees of respondent company ("PTCL") some of whom were holding posts in BS-17 and above. The PTCL was privatized in 1996 but the Federal Government still retains 74% majority stake in its shareholding. After privatization, the management of PTCL is vested in a foreign strategic investor who enjoys complete autonomy in decision making subject to the privatization framework provided by the Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act No,XVII of 1996 (the "Act"). The terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Telephone and Telegraph (T&T) Department who were working in PTCL at the time of its privatization, are regulated, inter alia, by subsections (2) and (3) of section 36 of the Act which provides:--- "(2) Subject to subsection (3) the terms and conditions of service of any Transferred Employee shall not be altered adversely by the company except in accordance with laws of Pakistan or with the consent of the transferred employees and the award of appropriate compensation."
(3) At any time within one year from the effective date of the order vesting property of the corporation in the company, the Federal Government may, with the prior written agreement of a transferred employee require him to be transferred to or revert him back and be employed by the authority. National Telecommunication Corporation Trust or the Federal Government on the same terms and conditions to which he was entitled immediately before such transfer."
2. On 15-11-2007 PTCL introduced a Voluntary Separation Scheme ("VSS") for its employees. This scheme was offered universally to all employees of the company who were classified in two groups for the financial benefits: employees in BS-16 and below and those in BS-17 and above. The scheme, inter alia, provides for payout of severance pay, separation bonus, medical benefits, leave encashment, commutation, provident fund and pension, housing allowance etc. In the matter of housing allowance, the scheme distinguishes only between employees availing company housing and those without such housing. The petitioners before the Court were in occupation of PTCL housing presently continue to reside in such housing. According to the terms of the scheme:-- "Employees with PTCL housing will retain their housing for a period of 6 months after separation from PTCL.
' Employees will also receive a one time payment equivalent to 6 months of House Requisition allowance based on the maximum eligible House Requisition allowance for the posted station.
' Employees with PTCL housing will receive a one time payment equivalent to 12 months of House Requisition allowance based on the maximum eligible allowance for the posted station."
3. Learned counsel for the respondent PTCL informs that a total of 50,068 employees were eligible to opt under the scheme; 34,582 employees opted for it whereas 15,484 employees declined the offer of VSS whilst 4,662 VSS options were rejected by the PTCL. He gave the above figures to show the completely voluntary nature and enforcement of the VSS scheme.
4. It is common ground that the petitioners before the Court have received their VSS financial benefits from the PTCL and have consequently retired from PTCL service. The six months allowed to the petitioners under the scheme for retaining PTCL accommodation under the scheme have also elapsed. The petitioners now pray that the period allowed to them for retaining their PTCL accommodation be extended on the ground that subsequently such extension was given by the PTCL to certain senior most officers who opted for VSS. Accordingly, the petitioners press that the PTCL discriminated in favour of its senior most officers by secretly carving out a niche for them in the otherwise single class of PTCL employees that is expressly adopted in the scheme for the purpose of housing benefits. In this regard, the petitioners rely on PTCL's letter dated 8-2-2008 addressed in the following relevant terms to the Executive Vice President Switching Network PTCL Headquarters, Islamabad:--- "Consequent upon early retirement under VSS and being BPS-21 officer, you are allowed to retain company accommodation No,IC Golf Road, Lahore upto the date of superannuation of sixty and half years i,e, 8-10-2011, under PTCL Service Rules, 17.22(3), on payment of normal rent."
5. With reference to the foregoing letter, it is contended that after 14-1-2008, the last date for employees to give their signed subscription and option under the VSS Scheme, the PTCL decided to selectively grant the extra favour of housing for an extended period to VSS optees from its senior management. This is notwithstanding the fact that the VSS scheme uniformly required all optees occupying PTCL housing to submit affidavits committing to vacate their PTCL housing within the period provided by the afore-noted terms of the scheme. Consequently, it is alleged that the VSS scheme is being enforced with discrimination in favour of senior management optees of VSS. The petitioners pray for equal treatment by grant of the same privilege of extended use of PTCL housing as the BS-21 officer addressed in the aforementioned letter.
6. Learned counsel for the PTCL has denied the grant of extended use of PTCL housing as a special privilege to its senior management optees. He attributes the additional housing benefit given in the above quoted letter to a BS-21 PTCL officer as being an obligation under longstanding classification made in the PTCL Service Regulations of 1996. In the matter of housing facilities, Regulation No,17.22(3) entitles a PTCL. Officer in BS-21 and 22, upon the event of his voluntary retirement, to retain accommodation already provided by the "Corporation" until the date he attains the age of sixty and a half years on payment of normal rent. Learned counsel explains that the subcategory of BS-21 and BS-22 in the officer cadre of the PTCL officer is well founded since the era prior to its privatization in 2006. Hence, PTCL has acted in accordance with law and without committing any act of discrimination or favoritism in the implementation of its VSS scheme. In rebuttal, the petitioners strongly object any nexus between the PTCL Service Regulations, 1996 and the terms of VSS scheme which is claimed to be completely autonomous. There is no reference or reliance upon the Service Regulations in the provisions of the VSS Scheme nor is any discretion given in the scheme to sub-classify the category of employees eligible for the housing benefits.
7. Although the step taken by the PTCL to provide additional housing benefit to its senior management has prima facie legal backing, the important question is whether the Service Regulations of 1996 are applicable to alter the terms of PTCL's VSS scheme of 2007. The scheme does not classify PTCL employees for the purpose of providing housing benefits. Nor does it refer to or rely on another legal instrument to import classification in such employees. The Court notes that the vintage of the regulations, their non-mention in the VSS scheme, the subject matter and the express uniform classification of optees under the scheme itself. These points make the objection raised by the petitioners to be worthy of consideration as evidently some optees under the scheme are by inference alone being given preferential treatment in excess of the express terms of the scheme.
8. At this stage of the hearing the learned counsel for the PTCL has made a positive gesture to curtail the litigation. Since the essence of the petitioner's attack is based on the allegation of discrimination in the enforcement of the scheme, he has frankly stated that the PTCL had no such object or purpose in mind; except to act strictly in accordance with law and regulations pertaining to the subject. Therefore, if at all there is discriminatory treatment with the petitioners D vis-a-vis a BS-21 Officer, which fact the PTCL does not concede, the company is nevertheless willing to withdraw its order dated 8-2-2008 made in favour of that officer and thereby avoid the allegation of discrimination. Based on that statement he asserts on instructions that the PTCL undertakes to enforce the Voluntarily Separation Scheme (VSS) universally and equally according to the classification given within the scheme. Consequently, the Service Regulation 1996 are irrelevant in that context.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners opposed the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that the discrimination, if any, has already been committed and that act should form the basis of an order passed by the. Court.
10. During the course of Court proceedings the parties are at liberty to change their positions in order to curtail or conclude their controversy and thereby the proceedings. In the present case, the respondents have modified their stand in order to avoid its actual or perceived conflict with law.
They are free to do so. The Court is bound to take judicial notice of such a change because that affects the existence of the original controversy which has been rendered academic and does not need adjudication.
11. Resultantly, these writ petitions are disposed of subject to faithful performance of PTCL's undertaking to the Court. In the event of such performance, the petitioners shall vacate their PTCL accommodation by 31-12-2008.