1981 PLP 443 (PLC)

‑‑ Date of birth‑Change ‑in‑Application for change submitted after expiry of time allowed in instructions issued by Management‑ Cannot be rejected merely for being late as time‑barred‑‑Time limit mentioned in instructions cannot be treated as prescribed by law‑, Entries recorded in record of District Health Officer‑‑‑Extracts of such entries carry presumption of correctness‑Cannot ‑be rejected unless rebutted by evidence. Abdul majid khan, Representative for Petitioner. Saifullah Siddiqui, Representative with Nisar Ahmed for Respondent Corporation. The applicant Sher Bahadar was employed on 16th December, 1946 as a coolie with the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation, Karachi and since then has been promoted and presently he is a foreman, with the respondent.

2. In the records then available with the respondent it would appear that his date of birth has been mentioned as 1920. The respon dent issued circulars in 1968 and 1978 addressed to the Administration requiring the officers concerned to obtain proofs of date of birth of employees in their respective Departments. 'The applicant submitted an application on 21st November, 1979 in which he stated' that his date of birth has wrongly been mentioned in the office records as 1920 and that his correct date of birth is 18th October, 1922 and in support thereof he submitted a certified‑ copy of the entry from the register of birth Police Station, Hazro, District Attock, which showed an entry No. 1430, and date of birth as 18th October, 1922. This certificate has been signed by the Head Clerk of District Health Office, Attock. This proof of date of birth was not accepted by the respondent, therefore, the applicant moved a representation on 17th July, 1980 to the Managing Director of the respondent forwarding another certified extract dated 7th' July, 1980 in which also the date of birth is shown as 18th October, 1922. Not having received any reply to the representation, the applicant made the present petition under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 praying that respondent be restrained from retiring him on and from 16th December, 1980 and directions be issued to the respondent.

3. The respondent has filed legal objections and written statement in which the main pleas are that the submission of proof of date of birth by the applicant was beyond the time permitted in the circular dated, 22nd May, 1978, issued by the respondent and hence the respondent was not bound to accept the application for correction of date of birth and secondly that there were discrepancies between the two certified extracts produced by the applicant:

4. I have heard Mr. Abdul Majid, Representative for the applicant and M/s. Saifullah Siddiqui Representative and Nasir Ahmed, Advocate for the respondent. With regard to the first plea raised by the respondent that the application for correction of date of birth was barred by time, it has no substance. The time limit prescribed by the respon dent were not prescribed by any law, but were departmental instructions, as such, the time limit prescribed therein, has no legal force. With regard to the second plea, as to the discrepancies in the certified extract, I have carefully examined both the certificates/extracts, which Mr. Saif ullah Saddiqui has also seen. There are no discrepancies in the material part of the certificate. Both state that the date of birth entered in the register is 18th November, 1922. These extracts are of presumptive evidence as to the correctness of the entries entered in the Public register and there is a presumption attached to it, as to its correctness. The respondent has produced no evidence to rebut this presumption. 1 would, therefore, accept the date of birth as 18th October, 1921. However, Mr. Saifullah Siddiqui states that respondents arc at liberty to verify the correctness of the certified copies of the extract produced y the applicant from the concerned authorities and if it transpires tat the same are false, the respondent shall be at liberty to retire the applicant immediately, Mr. Majid Khan concedes this petition. In the circum stances, I would direct that applicant shall continue in service with the respondent until he reaches, the age of superannuation as per certificate produced by him.