1986 PLP 692 (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Ikram Zahid for Appellant. Khurshid Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th January, 1986. The decision, dated 2‑10‑1985 recorded by learned Court No‑4, Faisalabad has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the appellant brought against his retirement order was dismissed.

2. The appellant was the employee of WAPDA and was sent to M.C.P. In his service record according to him the date of his birth is 1932. In 1970 when insurance forms were filled in, the date of birth of the appellant was given is 1922. Accordingly correction was made in the service record changing the year from 1932 to 1922. The service record is Exh.R.3. The appellant was retired from service according to the date of birth given as 1922. On the representation of the appellant he was sent for medical examination and the Doctor gave certificate that his age was 58 years. The appellant, therefore, was allowed to serve for two years more and was finally retired in 1984.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant being an illiterate person he did not give his date of birth as 1922 in the insurance form and thus according to his original service record he should have been retired considering his date of birth as of 1932. Since the insurance form bears the signatures of then appellant it can safely be presumed that the date of birth given in that form was according to the information given by the appellant. The appellant gave the bio-data. It is idle to think that the officer who made entry in the form himself gave his date of birth as of 1922. No copy of the birth entry or school-leaving certificate is on the record. In the absence of such documentary evidence the service record or the medical reports are to be considered to determine the age. Since there was disparity in the date of birth given in the original service record and the insurance record given in 1970 and as in both the documents the date of birth is presumed to have been given by the appellant, the respondent was justified in getting the appellant medically examined. Medical certificates regarding age is no doubt a weakest possible evidence but in the absence of any other better evidence there is no other alternate but to act upon this kind of evidence. When the appellant was allowed to' serve for two years more pursuant to the medical certificate he did not object to it and did not challenge the order in~ the Labour Court. It is clear that he felt satisfied, therefore, after completing the said period he was not justified in challenging the second order of retirement. In these circumstances the order of the learned lower Court appears to be correct.

4. As a result not finding any force the appeal is dismissed. A.E.???? Appeal dismissed.