BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COURT OF FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL,

KARACHI

Appeal No. 26 of 2010.

Khawaja Muhammad Maqsood Anwar

----------------Appellant
…….. Versus ……..

The Director General , Pakistan Rangers ,

(Sindh) & Others
---------------- Respondents.

REJOINDER TO THE OBJECTIONS FILED

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

I, Khawaja Muhammad Maqsood Anwar son of Khawaja

Khursheed Anwar, Superintendent, Rangers, RO- 184, Indus Rangers, Posted at
District Shaheed Benazir Abad, do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under:

1). That employees of Pakistan Rangers are Civil Servants, as per decision
held and reported in 1998 SCMR, 1081 as well as the case law mentioned by the
respondent 2004, SCMR, 1397, wherein it has been held that employees of
Frontier Corps can invoke the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal for redressal of
their grievance. It is further submitted that if there is any conflict in between
Civil Servant Act, 1973 and Rules made there under and Pakistan Rangers
Ordinance, 1959 and Rules made there under, then Pakistan Rangers
Ordinance, 1959 and Rules made there under will prevail over Civil Servant
Act, 1973 and Rules made there under. It is further submitted that the
Honourable Tribunal can go into question of promotion, where injustice has
been to a Civil Servant as held in PLJ 1996 Tr.c (Services) 800, the same fact has
also been mentioned in a reported case law 1981, PLC (CS) 115.

2). That respondents have misread and quoted Rule-8 of Pakistan Rangers
Recruitment Rules, 1968, Rule-8 (3) (a) suggests that promotion to the rank of
Deputy Superintendent of Rangers and above is made on merits cum seniority
basis and Rule-8(3)(b) suggests that promotion from sepoy to inspector is made
P/2…

P/2…
on seniority cum efficiency basis, so it has been admitted by the respondent that
promotion was not made on merit basis. It is further worth to mention here that
adverse remarks which were given to respondents No. 2 to 4 have been
suppressed and in screened in the objections filed on their behalf.

3). That the main submission on my part is that I was the most suitable and
deserving persons to be promoted to the next higher post viz-a-viz respondents
No. 2 to 4. My officers efficiency index (OEI) is 70.95, whereas, respondent
No.2, has (OEI) of 69.49, while respondent No.4 has (OEI) of only 65.44, hence
the order passed by respondent is nothing but miscarriage of justice.

4). That contents of Para No.1 to 3 of the comments filed on the part of
respondents are denied. It is further submitted that advise is not a punishment
nor it makes an officer unfit for further promotion. I was advised, but
recommended for further promotion in my ACRs. Respondents have not
denied in the ground mentioned at Para No.11. It is also submitted that the
adverse entries and remarks assigned to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 have been
intentionally and deliberately kept hidden, hence the Honourable Court may be
pleased to direct them to produce the Service record of respondents Nos. 2 to 4.
Respondent No.3, was severally reprimanded and respondent No.4 was
censured and was awarded the punishment of withholding a annual
increment for one year, while I have never earned any red/bad entry through
out in my service carrier. ACR for the year 2007 was to be initiated by the Wing
Commander; instead, ACR for the year 2007 was initiated by the Commandant
Head Quarters. Thar Rangers Col: Nadeem Shahid and Wing Commander was
asked to send pin-picture, I was graded “A”. Photostat copy is submitted
herewith. Paragraph No.2 and 3 are baseless.

5). That my record during my service carrier is clean and my OEI is over
and above. Respondents have tried their best to divert the attention of the
Honourable Court from the original case, notwithstanding my case is not
regarding fitness for promotion, as according to my service carrier record and
ACR I was a fit person to be promoted so.

6). That respondents Nos. 2 to 4 earned three punishments during the

service, while I earned 14 good entries and respondents No.2 earned only two
good entries , respondent NO.3, earned 10 good entries whereas respondent
P/3…

P/3…
No.4 has not earned a single good entry throughout his service carrier, hence
my case is on better footing than the case of respondents Nos.2 to 4.

7). That it shall be in the interest of justice that order passed by respondent
No.1, dated: 14th January, 2010, may be reversed and my appeal may be allowed
as prayed.

Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief.

Deponent.