1989 PLP 6 (PLC)

AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑The petitioner through this petition has prayed for the following reliefs:‑‑ "(a) The petitioner, therefore respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the impugned orders of retirement of the petitioner dated 31‑10‑1985 and 18‑5‑1986 or any subsequent order, which is passed or may be passed by the respondent in this behalf are without lawful authority and are of no legal effect. (b) It may further "be declared that the petitioner is entitled under the law to continue in the services of the respondents until he attains the age of sixty years, which falls on 9‑6‑1988. (c) Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may please be granted."

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner was appointed as an officer of the respondent Bank on 16‑9‑1946 in Bombay, India. Upon the creation of Pakistan, the petitioner joined the respondent bank in Pakistan. While he was working as the Senior Vice President and Regional General Manager, Abbottabad Circle in the Head Office of the respondent bank at Karachi, on 2nd November, 1985, the petitioner was served with a letter dated 31st October, 1985 under the signature of Mr. S.AA. Subzwari, Executive Vice‑President, Personnel Division, Karachi, the relevant portion of the letter reads as follows:‑‑ "On attaining the superannuation age of sixty years as on 9‑6‑1986 according to your date of birth given in the record, you shall, therefore, stand retired from the service of the Bank on the same date at the close of office hours," Upon the receipt of the above letter, the petitioner made enquiries and discovered that while filling in prescribed Staff Form in Bombay, the date of birth was mentioned as 10‑6‑1926 as against his correct date of birth, which is 10‑6 1928. After discovering the above fact, the petitioner made representation to the Member Executive Board and another to the Executive Vice‑President Personnel Division on 19‑11‑1985 and 20‑11‑1985 respectively, stating therein that his correct date of birth was 10‑6‑1928 and not 10‑6‑1926. The petitioner alongwith the above representation submitted original Matric Certificate, attested copy of the certificate dated 13‑6‑1967 issued by Habib Insurance Co. Ltd. indicating the date of birth and photostat copy of the National Identity Card. But the above representation was not accepted and, thereafter, the petitioner filed the present petition and prayed for the above‑quoted reliefs.

3. We have heard M/s. Saghir Hussain Jafri and Malik Muhammad Said, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the above petition. Their main submission was that there was ample material to indicate that the correct age of the petitioner was 10‑6‑1928 which included the above three documents submitted by the petitioner and also certain records of the respondent bank wherein the above correct date of birth has been mentioned and, therefore, the respondent Bank should have accepted the correct date of birth for the purpose of retirement. On the other hand Mr. Ibrahim Pishori, learned counsel for the respondent Bank, has submitted that the above petition is not competent as the respondent bank has not acted illegally by acting upon the date of birth given by the petitioner in his service Form. He has further submitted that as far back as on 1st April, 1957, the respondent bank in response to the petitioner's letter dated 29th March, 1957 had informed him abut the date of birth recorded in the bank, which was 10‑6‑1926.

4. We may observe that the petitioner has denied the factum of writing the above aforesaid letter dated 29th March, 1957 and receiving its reply dated 1st April, 1957 the copies of which were filed by the respondent bank alongwith their comments. Be that as it may, we may observe that the petitioner has not pointed out any statutory rule dealing with the question of determination of age in case of controversy. In the absence of violation of any statutory rule, we cannot exercise constitutional jurisdiction.

5. We are, therefore, of the view that the above petition has no merits and, therefore, it is dismissed with no order as to costs. These are the reasons in pursuance of short order of even date. S.Q./S‑247/K Petition dismissed.