1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Factual controversy, could not be resolved in a Constitutional petition. S. Amjad Hussain for Petitioner. Izhar Haider Rizvi for Respondent. MUHAMMAD ASLAM ARAIN, J.‑‑‑In this Constitution petition the prayer made by the petitioner is (a) to declare that the retirement of petitioner on 1‑5‑1992 is without lawful authority, having no legal sanctity and the petitioner, who is eligible to retire in accordance with the correct date of birth i.e. 1‑5‑1935, cannot be retired on 1‑5‑1992; (b) the respondent be directed to accept authentic documents produced by the petitioner and allow him to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years on the basis of documents produced by him. The facts as given by the petitioner are that he joined the respondent Corporation in May, 1952 as a Karkoon at the age of 17 years. His date of birth shown as 1‑5‑1932 was not correctly recorded in the service record then and in fact he was born on 30th January, 1935. On account of his honest and efficient performance, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Supervisor, Supervisor, Senior Supervisor and then Foreman. The petitioner was also interviewed for promotion to the post of Senior Foreman in February, 1992. According to the petitioner, it was only during the course of interview that it transpired that the birth date of petitioner was incorrectly recorded. On 19‑2‑1992 he addressed an application duly supported by an affidavit before the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer of the respondent. He also annexed with said application a certificate of birth issued by the Government of Haryana (India) duly endorsed by the First Secretary, High Commission for Pakistan, New Delhi which showed his date of birth as 30‑1‑1935. On such representation made by the petitioner, his case was recommended by Deputy Chief Engineer but with mala fide intention his case was not being considered which facts necessitated the filing of the petitioner with prayer as stated above. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the record. The contentions of Mr. S. Amjad Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner are almost the same as stated in the memo of petition. He also placed before us the original certificate in Hindi language and its true translation, according to which the date of birth of petitioner was 30‑1‑1935. According to him, this was an authentic certificated duly attested by the First Secretary, High Commission for Pakistan, New Delhi, authenticity of which could not be doubted and the petitioner should be deemed to have been born on the said date whereafter his retirement would fall on 29‑1‑1995. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment reported in 1984 PLC 1530. Syed Izhar Haider Rizvi, learned counsel for the respondent, has drawn our attention to an application dated 19‑2‑1991 Annexure‑A, moved by the petitioner in which he had admitted to have given incorrect date of birth as it was entered due to some emergency and as he was in trouble. We have also been referred to two national identity cards of the petitioner, one issued on 27‑2‑1.974 and the second obtained by the petitioner on 13‑8‑1990, after probably having realised that he would stand retired on the basis of his birth date recorded at the time of entry in service. We have also been referred to K.E.S.C. card in the name of the petitioner issued on 9‑6‑1990 in which date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 31‑1‑1935. This card is issued on 9‑6‑1990 after obtaining birth certificate from Haryana (India) but the old card is not produced, seemingly it must bear the date of birth which was entered in his service record at the time of entry in service. When the petitioner entered in service of respondent, he had shown his date of birth as 1‑5‑1932, and never sought correction till the year 1990 when his retirement came to be very near. He then managed to call for a certificate of his birth from Haryana (India) to assert that his date of birth was 30-1‑1935. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that this certificate which is in Hindi is duly countersigned by the First Secretary, High Commission for Pakistan, New Delhi and should be considered as authentic, in our view, carries no weight. If the date of birth of petitioner was really 30‑1‑1935 he should have managed to call for the original certificate much before, and not at the time when he realised that he was to retire in near future. He has even obtained two N.I.Cs and the purpose of obtaining the second N.I.C. could be nothing more than that the petitioner was manipulating one way or the other to succeed in showing that he was younger in age than what his age would manifest from the actual date of birth entered in his service record when he entered in the service of respondent. His own admission in application dated 19‑2‑1991 that he gave incorrect date of birth as it was entered due to some emergency and that he was in trouble, shows that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. In Ch. Khair Din v. Commissioner, Lahore Division and another 1984 PLC (CS) 153, although it was held that where date of birth varied in service record, appellant was given benefit of latter date for purpose of retirement, we do not subscribe to that view as the facts in the reported case are distinguishable from the, fact of present petition. We may also observe that the factual controversy cannot be resolved in a Constitution petition. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the petition and dismiss the same, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./R‑242/K Petition dismissed.