Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD 634 of 1980, heard, on 5th November, 1980.

‑‑ Retirement‑Railway employee applying for leave preparatory to retirement on basis of date of birth in his own declaration at time of entry into service‑‑Availing of full L. P. R. due‑Subsequently raising plea that his date of birth was different than that given in his declara tion‑Labour Court relying upon Municipal Birth Certificate, School Leaving Certificate and Medical Certificate passing order setting aside retirement order‑Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances, setting aside order of Labour Court and, held, such official having himself applied for retirement and availing of L. P. R. could not make grievance for re‑instatement ‑ Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 37.

S. M. Alvi for Appellant.

Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 5th November, 1980.

This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned VIth Labour Court, given on 18‑8‑1980, on the grievance petition of the respondent employee, holding that the date of birth of the respondent was 23‑2‑1927 and in consequence set aside the order passed by the appellant for the retire ment with effect from Rs. 22‑5‑1980.

2. The case of the respondent is that as his date of birth was 23‑2‑1927, he was due for superannuation on 22‑2‑1987, and accordingly his being sent on L. P. R. with effect from 30‑9‑1979, and his date of retirement being fixed as 23‑5‑1980, are invalid. It appears that the grant of L. P. R. to the respondent and the fixing of date of his retirement as 23‑5‑1980, was on the basis of the declaration of the date of birth given by the respondent at the time of his entry in service. It, however, was satisfactorily established before the Labour Court, on the basis of the Municipal Birth Certificate, the School Leaving Certificate and the medical certificate issued in respect of respondent, that his actual date of birth was 22‑2‑1927 and not 23‑5‑1920, as wrongly stated by him in his declaration. Although, respondent has been retired earlier than his attaining the age of superannuation, on account of misconception as to the date of his birth, the question which falls to be considered in the present appeal is whether the respondent is entitled to be taken back in service upto the date of his attaining the age of superannuation and entitled to back benefits for intervening period. Now, in the first place, it is not disputed by the respondent that in his declaration, at the time of his entry in service, he had shown the date of his birth as 23‑5‑1920. In fact, a photostat copy of the record of service of the respondent was produced before the learned Labour Court. The relevant entry in the record of service, which bears the signature of the respondent, shows the date of birth of respondent as 23‑5‑1920. Even if this wrong declaration by the respondent himself were ignored, the respondent, in my opinion, is not entitled to any relief. The Personal File of the respondent, which was produced before me by Mr. Alvi, the learned counsel for the Railway, shows that on 6‑5‑1979, the respondent had submitted an application for being allowed to proceed on leave preparatory to retirement with effect from 23‑5‑1979. This application bears the signature of the respondent. He not only applied for L. P. R., but actually proceeded on L. P. R. and has enjoyed the full L. P. R. due on retirement. Furthermore, he submitted written acknowledgement to the Divisional Personnel Officer that his date of retirement was 22-5‑1980. According to rule 8 of the Revision of Pension Rules and Rate‑Recommend actions of the Pay and Service Commission of Government of West Pakistan Railway Department, Railway Board, in the case of a person who intends to retire before attaining the age of superannuation, he shall submit a written intimation to the authorities indicating the date on which he intends to retire and such intimation, once submitted, shall be final and shall not be allowed to be modified or withdrawn. This rule, therefore, disentitled the respondent either to re‑instatement in service or award of back benefits; since the respondent had himself intimated the date of his retirement, At best, it is to be considered that the respondent was not retired on attaining the age of superannuation but after completing the 25 years of service. His applying for and availing of L. P. R. further disentitle him to relief.

3. No rule was cited or referred to which entitles the respondent either to re‑instatement in service after intimating the date of retirement and having availed of L. P. R.

4. For the reasons discussed by me above, the order of the learned Labour Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.