1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑Ch. Khair Din has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Commissioner of Lahore Division and District Collector, Sialkot, respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that his retire ment order be set aside and (respondents be directed to re‑instate him in service with all back benefits and seniority. 3. We have heard the parties at length and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. 4. The only issue involved in this case is whether Ch. Khair Din was born in the year 1922 or in 1924 or 1921, as he has been retired by the Collector of District Sialkot, who considered him superannuated on 14th April, 1982. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that since these entries varied from each other, the case of the appellant was referred to Medical Superintendent as well. as Medical Board who were of the opinion that the appellant was about 59 years of age on 24th March, 1982. According to the learned counsel the Collector has taken a hasty step and without waiting for the reply of the reference to the Medical authorities, announced the retirement of the appellant. It has been vehemently argued that the appellant should not have been retired on the said date as he had a year left from his age of 60 years. On the other hand learned District Attorney has produced before us, two documents viz. Service Book and Character Roll. He has pointed out that these two documents have been signed by the appellant himself in which he has been shown to be born in April, 1922, and in other documents he has been shown to be born in 1921. According to the learned District Attorney, as these two dates vary, therefore the benefit should go to the appellant of the latter date in his favour. It has been further submitted that even by this date of birth, he has completed 60 years of age. 6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties before us and find that it was hardly necessary for the District Collector to refer his case to the Medical Board, when there were two acknowledgments duly signed by him, that his date of birth was 1st August, 1921 or 14th April, 1922. 7. In view of the above we are in full accord with the learned District Attorney that he may be given the benefit of the latter date viz. 14th April, 1922 which should be considered his date of birth for the purpose of retirement. 8. In view of the above analysis of the case we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. M. I. Appeal dismissed.