2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

AZAD MUHAMMAD AWAN (MEMBER-II).

Briefly stated that facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant had joined the Excise and Taxation Department as Excise Constable in the year 1964 and assumed his duties on 26-8-1964. Subsequently vide orders dated 4-10-1973 he was appointed as Junior Clerk in the said department where he was promoted to different posts and risen to the office of Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer Rahim Yar Khan. Vide orders dated 17-1-2005 the competent authority ordered his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 1-2-2006 because his date of birth at the time of joining initial govt. service was 2-2-1946 which date was recorded in the service book on assuming the charge of the appellant on 26-8-1964. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Secretary Excise and Taxation vide order dated 10-3-2006, hence the present appeal.

2. The appellant did not mention the date of his original appointment as Excise Constable. However it was alleged that he was appointed as Junior Clerk vide order dated 4-10-1973 and was serving as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer when respondent No.2 passed the order of retirement of the appellant on attaining the age of superannuation. It was alleged that the date of birth of the appellant was 20-2-1948 which was erroneously recorded as 2-2-1946 in the service book. It was alleged that the appellant had been making efforts to get the date of birth corrected but no order with regard to the correction of date of birth was ever passed. Allegedly on 22-1-2005 he submitted an application to the Excise and Taxation Officer for correction of his date of birth who recommended change/correction of date of birth. The Excise and Taxation Officer had at his own corrected the date of birth in the service book as 20-2-1948 instead of 2-2-1946 but the said fact was' not considered by respondent No.2 while ordering retirement of the , appellant. In his parawise comments the respondent No.2 maintained that the appellant was appointed in Excise and Taxation Department as Constable in the year 1964 and if his date of birth was 20-2-1948 at that time his age was about 16, years which would mean that he had prepared bogus documents for his initial recruitment in the Excise and Taxation Department. It was further alleged that according to the record of the NADRA the date of birth in his National Identity Card was 1946 but on the request of the appellant it was changed to 20-2-1948. It was maintained that as per the date of birth entered in the service book at the time of joining govt. service his date of birth was 2-2-1946.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned District Attorney and have gone through the record. The respondents have placed on record notification dated 4-9-1975 which provided that the declaration of age made by the govt. servant at the time of or for the purpose of entry into govt. service was deemed to be conclusive unless he applied for the correction of the date of birth within two years of the date of entry into service. Those already in service could move such an application within one year. The appellant had himself placed on record a copy of the notification dated 15-11-2000 whereby the Governor of Punjab amended the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 which provided that date of birth once recorded at the time of joining of govt. service shall be final and thereafter no alteration in the date of birth of the civil servant shall be permissible. Much stress has been laid down on the copy of the matriculation certificate which prima facie showed that the date of birth of the appellant was 20-2-1948. If that was so the appellant could not have joined service as Constable in the year 1964 at the age of only about 16 years. It appears that at the time of joining of service the appellant had intentionally made declaration of his date of birth as 2-2-1946 so as to bring his age more than 18 years. It was for this reason that it was not even alleged that the appellant has produced the matriculation certificate at the time of his initial appointment as Excise Constable. Had it been so the appellant could not have been appointed as Excise Constable at the age of 16 years when he was still minor. As mentioned earlier notification dated 4-9-1975 provided that govt. servant can apply for correction of his date of birth within two years of date of entry. The appellant had joined service in the year 1964. Though there is no record in that behalf' yet it was alleged that the appellant had made many representation since 1991 for .correction of the record but in vain. On the other hand the representation filed by the appellant for correction was moved in the year 2005, copy appearing at page 9 Annexure- "D" of the file. I am persuaded to hold, in. the given circumstances of the case that the appellant himself made declaration of his age at the time of initial entry into service in the year 1964 as 2-2-1946 only to make out the case that he was above the age of 18 years. The appellant can hardly blow hot and cold in the same breath and claim the benefits of two years at the time of original recruitment and two years after superannuation. The prayer of the appellant for correction of his date of birth was rightly rejected in view of the notification dated 4-9-1975 as also the notification dated 15-11-2000 as indicated above. Since the date of birth as entered at the time of entry into govt. service was final, therefore the order of retirement on superannuation has rightly been passed. I have hardly found any legal infirmity in the orders of the authority and the appellate authority. Resultantly the appeal is 'without substance and is dismissed. H.B.T./28/PST Appeal dismissed.