1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

2. He challenged the validity of this order in the present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 with the prayer that (a) "the impugned premature retirement order dated 30‑6‑1985 may kindly be set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the appellant to continue his service till the age of superannuation according to the date of birth originally recorded in his service record i.e. 22‑2‑1930" and that (b) "the respondents may kindly be directed to correct the date of birth of the appellant as 12‑2‑1930 with re‑instatement in service with effect from 30‑6‑1985 carrying all consequential benefits."

3. As for the facts in the background, we feel constrained to observe that we have had to go through the entire record to know what exactly is the appellant's case. Much has been left to be desired in the narration of facts in the appeal which seems to have been drafted in a manner as would cause an impression that effort is being made to conceal certain facts and that the appellant is not coming to us with clean hands. We feel sorry to remark that the appellant's case should have been stated in a straightforward manner as could have enabled us to understand the background of the order of his retirement and that we have instead been obliged to grope into the record to decipher the facts.

4. After pleading that he was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 1‑5‑1969 and. then promoted as UDC, in paragraph No. 2 of the appeal, the appellant appears to have jumped to the assertion that he made applications for the correction of his date of birth since 1973 and that it had been "tampered with by someone without any lawful authority and any communication to the appellant". It is further pleaded in this paragraph that the dispute "regarding correctness of his date of birth remained hanging (ire for more than a decade as is evident from letter dated 25‑3‑1985 of the Military Estate Officer, Karachi" (Annexure‑A).

5. It seems to us that the pleadings in paragraph No. 2 do not appear to have a rapport with what the appellant had earlier said in paragraph No. 1 of the appeal and that they are entirely out of context. Without stating the background of how this dispute came about, the appellant asserted that he made applications for the correction of his date of birth since 1.973 and that they had been tampered with without any lawful authority. The same observation would apply to the assertion that the dispute regarding correction of appellant's date of birth remained pending for more than a decade.

6. This apart, the record belies the allegation that the entries regarding his date of birth were tampered with and changed from 12‑3‑1930 to 1‑7‑1925. The facts are entirely different and we feel obliged to say that these assertions do not lead us to the correct factual position.

7. This is what we have. been able to understand from the material on record: The appellant was appointed as LDC under the respondents on 1‑5‑1969. Before this appointment he served in the same capacity with Cantonment Board, Quetta from 28‑8‑1953 to 23‑1‑1960. After his appointment with the respondents, his service book was not maintained because he failed to produce his Matriculation Certificate showing his exact date of birth. However, he produced his service book maintained by the Cantonment Board, Quetta where his date of birth had been recorded as 12‑2‑1930. The matter was reported to C.M.A. and P, Lahore through letter dated 10‑11‑1972 with a query as to how the date of birth was to be ascertained in the absence of Matriculation Certificate. It was asked as to whether the entries regarding date of birth in the appellant's service book maintained by the Cantonment Board, Quetta were to be relied upon. C.M.L. and P, Lahore informed the Office of Deputy Director, Military Land and Cantonment Lahore that no reliance could be placed upon the entries regarding date of birth made in the previous service book and that the age ascertained by the Medical Officer concerned at the time of appointment will be acted upon and treated as final. In accordance with the medical certificate provided by C.M.L. and P, Lahore, the appellant's age was 44 years at the time of his appointment. Under Rule 117(i) of the General Financial Rules of Central Government Servants (Volume‑1), if a Government servant is unable to state his correct date of birth and states only the year or year and month of his birth, the 1st of July or the 16th of the month respectively may be treated as the date of birth. In this case, according to the medical certificate, the appellant's date of birth fell in the year 1925 and corrections were accordingly made in the entries regarding date of birth, so as to change them from 12‑2‑1930 to 1‑7‑1925 in the office of DDML and C, Lahore.

8. Under the aforementioned circumstances, there is no substance in the. allegation that the entries regarding the appellant's date of birth were tampered with by any person and changed to his detriment. Nor, for that matter, it is possible to find that it was a case of premature retirement, as the appellant seems to have wanted us to believe. In the absence of a detailed and meticulous application to the material on the record, his pleadings do cause an impression as if his premature retirement was ordered by way of punishment, which in fact was not the case.

9. In the context of what has been stated earlier by way of introduction to facts of the case, it may be mentioned that the appellant did not make a mention in his pleadings of the fact that he himself requested by means of an application (Annexure‑C) to the Director, Military Land and Cantonment, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi that he may be granted leave preparatory to retirement from 16‑2‑1985 to 30‑6‑1985 and transferred to Pension Establishment with effect from 1‑7‑1985, because his stay at Lahore was necessary due ‑to some unavoidable circumstances. He also clearly mentioned in his application that 1‑'9‑1085 was the date of his superannuation. Although, he did make a reference of this application in his re‑joinder to the averments made by the respondents in their written statement, the fact remained that he did not make any mention of this very, important circumstance in his‑ pleadings, which should have been done to avoid an impression that he had been deliberately concealing something from the Tribunal.

10. Be that as it may, there is substance in the contention that this application amounts to an admission of the fact that his date of birth had been correctly ascertained and that 30‑6‑1985 was the date of his superannuation. Had this not been a fact, the appellant would not have made the aforementioned application containing a clear admission against his own interest. We are not prepared to believe, as has been pleaded in the re‑joinder, that he was forced to make this application because his case regarding correction of entries of his date of birth had not been finally decided. We feel constrained to say that the re joinder does not contain any plausible explanation of his conduct, emerging out of the submission of this application; which according to us, constitutes a reliable evidence of the fact that his date of birth had been correctly ascertained by the Doctor, especially in the presence of evasive pleadings justifying an inference that the Matriculation Certificate had not been produced even at the time of his original appointment as LDC by the Cantonment Board, Quetta. We say so because nowhere in his representation, did he say that any such certificate had been produced before the Board at that time and that he should be given an opportunity to procure its copy, or that it had been misplaced. There is no doubt that at the bar it was stated that such a certificate did exist and that it was misplaced, but there is nothing either in the pleadings or in the representation, to give us even the slightest indication that there was any such certificate and that it had been produced at the time of his recruitment with Cantonment Board, Quetta in August, 1953. It may also be mentioned that had any such certificate been adduced at that time, it would not have been difficult to procure its copy from the record of the Board at Quetta in support of the appellant's case. This has not been done and we feel no hesitation in saying that appellant's case is without any substance.

11. Merits apart, the appeal was also opposed on the preliminary objection that it was barred by limitation. It is pleaded in the written statement that the appellant's appeal to the Director, Military Land and Cantonment dated 20‑4‑1985 was rejected by the competent authority and that he was informed of this fact through letter dated 11‑8‑1985 (Annexure‑A with the written statement). It was further pleaded that second appeal dated 25‑7‑1985 (Annexure‑K with the appeal) was not competent and that the appellant should have filed the present appeal with the Tribunal within one month of the receipt of letter dated 11‑8‑1985.

12. As we see from the record the matter regarding the appellant's date of birth came to light sometime m the year 1972. It shows that it was dealt with by the office continuously on different occasions. He could not produce his Matriculation certificate and notes were recorded by the officials concerned regarding his medical examination, maintenance of service book, production of service book maintained by the Cantonment Board at Quetta and the medical certificate produced before that Board at the time of earlier recruitment, which incidentally bears out that even there, the Matriculation certificate had not been produced and reliance was placed in support of the factum of age on medical certificate. Anyway, it is quite clear that this matter remained pending ever since the year 1972 and the appellant was in no doubt while coming close to the age of superannuation that his date of birth namely 12‑2‑1930 recorded in his service book, had not been accepted by the respondents. This being so, there was no reason why he should not have had recourse to the Tribunal well in time for the redress of his grievance. He, however, chose to wait during all this period and, as already noticed, the order of his retirement was finally passed on 30‑6‑1985 (Annexurc‑J), which he received, as is borne out by telegram dated 3‑7‑1985 (Annexure‑H) addressed to Director, Military Land and Cantonment Board, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi, where he said that he had been retired from service with effect from 30‑6‑1985 on the basis of unauthorised alteration in the date of his birth in the service book. He made representation dated 2‑7‑1985 (Annexure‑J) to the. Director, where he stated that order with regard to his retirement dated 30‑6‑1985 had` been passed without deciding his earlier applications dated 20‑4‑1985 and 30‑5‑1985. Even these applications do not appear to have found favour with the respondents, as is apparent from letter dated 11‑8‑1985 whereby he was intimated that the order of his retirement was final. The appellant made another representation dated 25‑7‑1985, against the order of his retirement dated 30‑6‑1985 (Annexure‑K). Nothing has, however, been produced to show that these representations were competent and that the appellant was within his rights to come to the Tribunal within 120 days of representation dated 25‑7‑1985. In view of these facts, we feel no hesitation in holding that the appeal is time‑barred, particularly when, in actual fact, as would appear from his prayer and pleadings, the subject of challenge is the alteration of his date of birth, rather than the order of his retirement dated 30‑6‑1985, which was the result of and necessarily emanated from that alteration. We are in no doubt whatever, that the cause of action in this case arose from the date of change in the relevant entries of the service, and limitation having started running against him from that date, he was bound to have recourse to the Tribunal with an appeal under section 4 of the Act, within thirty days of awareness of change in the entries regarding his date of birth.

13. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is dismissed as being time barred and without any substance. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

14. Parties to be informed. A.A./508/Sr. F Appeal dismissed.