Before the Honorable Civil Judge, Peshawar.

In the matter of:

Haroon Ahmed

Versus

PESCO and others

WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF

(DEFENDANT NO. 1,2 and 3)

May it please this Honorable Court

The Defendants very humbly submits as under:

Preliminary Objections

1. That the suit has not competently been filed.

2. That the plaintiff has got no cause of action against the answering defendant.

3. That the suit filed is bad both in form as well as substance thus in its present form
is not maintainable.

4. That the suit of the Plaintiff and the allegations leveled against the answering
defendant are false, vexatious and unfounded.

5. That the Plaintiff has not come to this Honorable Court with clean hands as he has
concealed material facts from this honorable court, hence not entitled for any
relief.
6. That the Plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the
material facts from this honorable court.
7. The suit in hand is barred by law.

8. That the suit is not properly valued.

On Facts

1. The Para 1 needs no reply, it relates to the plaintiff’s persona

2. Para no 2 needs no comments as it pertains to record.

3. This Para is partially agreed to the extent of up-gradation. Timescale up-
gradation is allowed to the officials as service benefit on common criteria so no
exceptional achievement is on record however further detail is explained in
reply to Para No 5.

4. Agreed matter being record like other employees.

5. Partially agreed the rest is denied. However it is clarified that the time scale
up-gradation from BPS 15 to 17 is granted when an employee fulfills the
criteria prescribed by the authority for the same. As such the plaintiff when
met with the said criteria, he was granted up-gradation despite the fact that he
has been involved in different departmental inquiries for instance (Inq No-
9680, Inq No-12381, Inq No-12426 and Inq No-11117) at different times of his
service, hence granting up-gradation does not ascertain the persons being
meritorious for the lifetime.

6. This Para No 6 is Not agreed hence denied. The plaintiff is trying to mislead
the Honorable Court by hiding the factual position. Whereas the subject
promotion board was initiated i.e. requisite documents as per seniority list of
diploma holders Upper Technical Subordinate Staff (UTS) were asked to be
provided for scrutiny/consideration for promotion as Junior Engineer under the
12.5% quota reserved for the UTS staff having qualification of 3 years diploma
in Electrical/Electronic vide office order letter no 6102-37 dated 15.02.2023
(ANNEXURE I). However after completion of the due process as per
prevailing rules and policy of the company the promotion board meeting was
 convened on 29.03.2023 issued by Office Notification Number 10746-71 dated
28.03.2023 (Annexure II) but after resolving an issue of seniority change at
the nick of board time/day the meeting was again convened on 31.03.2023.
Furthermore the plaintiff was not deprived and was given equal opportunity by
consideration in the said board for promotion as Junior Engineer.

7. The Para 7 is based on mixing of facts hence Not agreed and denied with
vehemence. The plaintiff is again jumbling facts of his wishes. The Plaintiff is
claiming to have provided all required documents however to the contrary, he
did not provide submit the request certificate of clearance that there is no
pending inquiry, disciplinary action, any FIA/NAB case against him which
ultimately led to his disqualification on merit and was declared UNFIT due to
pending 2x departmental Inquiries.

8. Not agreed. The plaintiff was already allowed times scale up-gradation on his
earlier fitness of that time where as promotion is entirely separate process
depending upon vacant post and present eligibility, already explained in reply
yo Para 5 above. It is for the stated that the subject promotion was convened in
accordance with the prevailing rules/policy of the company with no malafide or
injustice on department’s part and neither ultra-virus. All proceedings were
conducted as per department rules policy/practices in vogue like all previous
similar cases.

9. Not agreed. The plaintiff is again misleading this honorable Court. As such
availing the benefit of times scale up-gradation does not deem the plaintiff fit
for promotion as junior engineer, beside he has to fulfill all the requisite
criteria codal formalities for promotion as well. The requisite it criteria for
promotion include mandatory trainings/qualifying the Departmental/promotion
examination, 5 years ACR with no adverse remarks, no pending audit para, no
pending inquiries no FIA/NAB case and no penalty imposition at the time of
the board. The Plaintiff was fit for up-gradation in the year 2018 however
UNFIT on the date of the subject promotion board held on 31.03.2023
proceedings i.e. because of pending inquires against him.

10. Para 10 is based on wrong assertions hence denied. The plaintiff has no
cause of action before this court. Two pending inquiries hold him ineligible for
 the promotion, because it had been clearly mentioned in office order dated
15.02.2023 under the heading of required documents at serial No. 8 regarding
no pendency of inquiry certificate which was not provided by the plaintiff.
Further on probing the matter from confidential section the promotion board
dug out two inquiries pending against the plaintiff.

11. That no cause of action arose to the plaintiff due to which this Honorable Court
has the power to dismiss the said plaint with heavy cost.

DEFENDANT No. 1 to 3

Through

Ansab Abdullah
Advocates High Court(s)

Verification
It is hereby verified that the contents of this written statement are true and correct and
nothing therein is false as per information conveyed to us by our client.
Deponent