Find a Lawyer

Case No. 445/1843 of 1982, decided on 16th December, 1982.

‑‑R. 7.3‑Date of birth‑Correction‑Civil servant himself declar ing his date of birth at his first entry into service and this fact supported by an affidavit‑Civil servant failing to apply for correction within two years as provided in r. 7.3 and while applying for pension he was sure that age given by him for re employment was correct‑Medical certificate produced by him not based on any scientific analysis‑Correction of date of birth declined, in circumstances.

M. A. Riaz for Appellant.

Haroonur Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

Raja Said Muhammad, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Hqrs.), Leiah has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Superintendent of Police, Leiah, Deputy Inspector General of Police, D. G. Khan Range at Multan, Commandant P. R. P. Chuharkana, District Sheikhupura and Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal be has prayed that his date of birth is 1924 and not 1922 by which he has been retired, on attaining the age of superannuation. By virtue of this he has prayed that he may be allowed two years more in service till the time of superannuation to be determined according to the age, certified by the Medical Superintendent.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined the Police Department in East Pakistan and served there till the said part of the country became independent and the appellant had to come back to West Pakistan. The appellant himself gave his date of birth as 10th September, 1922 and also filed an affidavit to the same effect. On the‑strength of his own statement, supported by his affidavit, be was absorbed in the service once again in the Punjab Police. On 14th Januarys 1982, the appellant addressed an application to the competent aut4ority that he is reaching the age of 60 years in September, 1982 ass ‑therefore, his pension papers be processed. He also made a request that he may be transferred to Gujranwala, a place to which he originally belonged. In view his request and as well as his date of birth given by the appellant, at the time of his reappointment, he was retired from service ton attaining the age of 60 years. However, the appellant was informed through some source that he was not actually bogy‑ in 1922 but he came into this world two years later. On the strength of this information he informed the Superintendent of Police that he is not yet due for retirement and for this purpose he may be medically examined. Under the order of the Superintendent of Police Multan, he was medically examined by the Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Multan who observed that the appellant looks 58 years of age by physical appearance as well as according to his own‑ statement. However, the competent authority did not accept this opinion of the Medical Superintendent as well as the assertion of the appellant and rejected his appeal. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. The crucial point in this case would be whether the date of birth of the appellant, wihch was given to the authority by him at the time of his re‑employment, supported by him own affidavit, be considered a basis for determining the date of his retirement or the medical certificate in which he has been held to be 58 years of age be considered as a basis to determine the date of superannua tion of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that under Police Rule 12.16 and its appendix No. 12.16, the appellant's claim is liable to be admitted as the same is supported by medical evidence. It has been further argued that his own affidavit and opinion provided to the Government at the time of his re‑employment would not be binding upon him. The learned counsel has further argued that it was incumbent upon the Government at the time of his re‑employment to get him medically examined to determine his age. On the other hand the learned Dis trict Attorney has submitted that the appellant cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath. It was he who himself disclosed the date of his birth, supported by an affidavit. He has further argued that the appellant cannot be allowed to change his recorded date of birth, as laid down in rule 7.3 of the Punjab Financial Rules Volume I and its Appendix B, which lays down that in regard to the date of birth, declaration of age made at the time of or for the purpose of entry into Government service shall, as against the Government servant in question, be deemed to be conclusive, unless he applies for correction of his age as recorded within two years from the date of his entry into Government service.

6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by the parties and have taken the rules so quoted by the parties into consideration. The fact is that the appellant himself declared his date of birth and also filed an affidavit under Punjab Financial Rules, Volume I, to substantiate the same. According to rule 7.3 of P. F. R. Volume I, he could apply within two years for correc tion of the said date of birth if be had any doubt in his mind or had any proof with him. Even after more than 10 years, the appellant did not consider that he had committed mistake. Even on 14th January, 1982 when be applied for preparation of his pension papers, he was sure that the age so given by him at the time of his re‑employment was correct. In view of these facts, we cannot allow him to come forward with this new plea.

7. With regard to the Medical Certificate and the Rules so referred by the learned counsel for the appellant we are of confirmed opinion that the medical certificate in this case would not in any manner advance the case of the appellant. The Medical Superintendent stated that the appellant asserts himself to be 58 years and by physical appearance be looks to be about the same. This opinion is not based on any scientific date, which could be available to the Medical Superintendent, if he would have referred him to Radiologist.

The appellant is a person of fairly advanced age and he may look younger than his age but appearances are often deception. More over the rule referred by the learned counsel for the appellant are the rules applicable to the recruits at the time of their recruitment.

8. In view of the above analysis of the facts of this case we do not find any merits of this appeal, which is dismissed.

M. Y. M.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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