1982 PLP 912 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 26th January, 1982. The appellant, who was employed as Recovery Clerk in the Daily Mashriq', the respondents herein, was retired from service with effect from 29th September, 1980 on the ground of having attained the super annuation age of 60 years. He challenged the order of his retirement before the learned Vth Labour Court on 2 grounds, firstly, that he had not attained the age of 60 years as he claimed that he was born on 20th December, 19226 and secondly, that the age of superannuation of 60 years was not applicable to him. The learned Labour Court, by its decision, given on 15th November, 1981 repelled both the above contentions of the appellant and dismissed his grievance petition. The first contention was rejected mainly on ground that the appellant himself had signed the entry in his Service Book, showing his date of birth as 14th August, 1920 according to which he had attained the age of superannuation on 13th August, 1980. The second contention was rejected on the basis of the Pension Rules which mentions the age of superannuation as 60 years. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. I have heard Mr. S. M. Abbas Khalid, the learned counsel for the appellant. He has reiterated the same contentions which were pressed before the learned Labour Court. In support of his contention that the appellant lead not attained the age of 60 years and in fact his correct date of birth was 28th December, 1926 he relied upon firstly, the affidavit of the appellant sworn before the Special Attesting Magistrate and Notary Public on 29th October, 1951 in connection with the loss of his High School Certificate. In that affidavit, the appellant has given his date of birth as 28th December, 1926 Apart from the fact that the affidavit contains admissions in favour of the appellant and such admissions are not admissible in evidence, it is not understood why this affidavit was necessary and for what purpose it was to be filed. Even if it be assumed that the appellant had lost his High School Certificate or it was snatched away by Bharati Police, as claimed by him, it was not difficult for the appellant in 1951 to have obtained a duplicate certificate from the Board of High Schools and Intermediate Education, Allahabad. It might further be mentioned that according to the aforesaid affidavit, the appel lant had passed his High School examination in 1940. If the correct date of birth of the appellant was 28th December, 1926 as given in this affidavit, this means that the appellant had passed High ,School examination at the age of 13 years which is rather unusual.

3. The next piece of evidence relied upon by Mr. Abbas in support of the above contention is the ‑Identity Card and the Passport of the appellant. No doubt, in both these documents the date of birth of the appellant is recorded as 28th December, 1926 but admittedly these entries have been made in the aforesaid documents at the instance of the appel lant. As such they do not establish that the appellant was actually born on 28th December, 1926 as claimed by him.

4. Mr. S. M. Abbas finally relied upon by the medical certificates issued by the Police Surgeon; Karachi, and the Medical Superintendent, Service Hospital, Karachi, showing the age of the appellant as 55 years. It is however, a well known fact that medical assessment of age specially in respect of the grown up and elderly persons, involves substantial margin of error either way. Furthermore,‑the certificates issued by the Police Surgeon and the Medical Superintendent are based upon external visual examination which does not provide a .sufficiently accurate basis for assessment of the age.

5. On the other hand, there is the admitted fact that in his Character Roll the appellants's date of birth is shown as 14th August, 1920. The entry regarding the date of his birth bears the signature of the appellant. e Since the appellant had voluntarily signed this entry and there is no tangible evidence to show that this entry is incorrect, the appellant would be deemed to be bound by it. Apart from this fact, it appears that the appellant's date of birth ‑as given in the Group Insurance Form, nominating his daughter to receive the insurance amount, shows his date of birth as 14th August, 1920. The appellant was confronted with this form and he admitted that it bears his signature. There is thus material evidence to show that the correct date of birth of the appellant is 14th August, 1920 and not 28th December, 1926 as wrongly claimed by him.

6. In regard to his second contention i. e. that there is no Service Rule applicable to the appellant providing that his age of retirement would be 60 years, Mr. Abbas submitted that the Service Rules were not produced. However, the respondent organization had produced the Pension Rules which admittedly would be applicable to the appellant. In those rules the age of retirement is shown as 60 years.

7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I am of the view that the appellant was rightly retired with effect from 28th September, 1980 as he had already crossed the age of 60 years, I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal in limine. Appeal dismissed.