1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. M. Almas Ali for Appellant. Date of institution : 10th September, 1981. This matter has come up before me under section 3‑A (2) (b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1974, on a difference of opinion between Mr. A. O. Raziur Rahman and Mr. Muhammad Irshad Khan, Members. The question involved in this case was whether the appellant's date of birth was 1st July, 1921 or 1st July, 1925. In the former case, the appellant had to retire on the 30th June, 1981, while in the latter case, he is to continue upto 30th June, 1985. 2. Mr. Rahman, after examining the evidence, came to the conclusion that the appellant's date of birth was 1st July, 1925. Mr. Khan, however, did not determine the issue, but held that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to give a finding with regard to the date of birth of the appellant. In coming to this conclusion, Mr. Khan relied on the judgment of Lahore High Court reported as Ghulam Raider v. Province of Punjab (P L D 1981 Lah. 413). 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Counsel for respondent has not appeared before me today, but Mr. Muhammad Sibtain, PDSP very efficiently assisted me in perusing the record. 4. As far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, I am unable to agree with Mr. Khan. This Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction, barring some matters specifically, mentioned in provisos to section 4 (1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, to redress the grievance of a civil servant in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service. In the present case, the date of birth determines the date of retirement of the appellant, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the determination of the age for that purpose is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. No doubt, the decision of this Tribunal with regard to determination of age would not of any help to the appellant in enforcing any other right of property or person, but as far as the date of his retirement is concerned, the finding given by this Tribunal will be final and not open to challenge any Civil Court. In fact under Article 212 (2) of the Constitution, no other Court has jurisdiction to determine the age of the appellant for the purpose of retirement from service. The Lahore High Court itself in another unreported case of Cr. No. 1306/P of 1979, decided on 4‑10‑1980, has given a finding contrary to the one given in the case relied upon by Mr. Khan. I am, therefore, fully convinced that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the age of the appellant for the purpose of date of his retirement. 5. On facts, Mr. Rahman has fully justified the conclusion that the date of birth of the appellant is 1st July, 1925 and I have nothing to add. 6. The result is that this appeal is accepted, and it is held that the appellant continues to be in service till he attains the age of superannuation, namely till 30th June, 1985, unless he ceases to hold office for any other reason. 7. Before I part W With this order, I may point out that Mr. Sibtain has expressed suspicion about the authenticity of the Certificate of High School Examination of 1941, showing the appellant to have appeared under Roll No. 16090. I have given the decision in favour of the appellant, because the weight of the evidence is in his favour, as discussed by Mr. Rahman. It is still open to the respondent department to obtain correct information from India through the courtesy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Certificate has been handed over to Mr. Sibtain, PDSP, for this purpose. If the certificate is proved to be forged one, then a criminal as well as departmental action can be taken against the appellant, which may result in his dismissal from service. 8. Parties to be informed accordingly.