1994 PLP 1633 (SCMR)
M.R. KHALID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, PUNJAB and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1633 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | M.R. KHALID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, PUNJAB and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1633 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1633 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1633 (SCMR) (M.R. KHALID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, PUNJAB and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Kh. Saeed‑ul‑Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th December, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeal No. 270 of 1991). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Correction of date of birth of civil servant‑‑‑Civil servant while taking competitive examination had himself declared his date of birth to be 2‑6‑1930 and thereafter remained in service for about 35 years‑‑‑Civil servant's name together with his declared date of birth appeared in the gradation lists and civil lists periodically published by the Provincial Government but he did not object to the incorrect publication of his date of birth till a few years before his retirement‑‑‑Mere fact that civil servant was able to obtain a decree from Civil Court for correction of date of birth, did not advance his case for the Government was not a party to that civil suit brought by him‑‑‑Silence of civil servant over the major portion of his service was such that he did not merit a favourable decision from tae Government relating to correction of his date of birth‑‑‑Service Tribunal's decision against civil servant did not warrant interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑The petitioner joined the Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch) through a Competitive Examination on 19‑8‑1955. He stated his date of birth to be 2‑6‑1930. He held senior appointments in the Provincial Administration and in accordance with his self‑declared date of birth he was retired from service with effect from 1‑6‑1990, that is, when he reached the age of 60 years.
2. A few years before his retirement he filed a civil suit against the University of the Punjab for a declaration to the effect that he was actually born on 14‑11‑1933 at Chah Ram Wala, Tehisl Shorkot. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. However, on appeal, an Additional District Judge at Lahore accepted his appeal and granted him a declaration to the effect that his date of birth was 2‑6‑1933: Apparently, the University did not care to challenge the declaration granted by the Additional District Judge in a higher forum.
3. Armed with the decree of the Additional District Judge the petitioner made a representation to the Government for correcting his date of birth and rescinding the order of his retirement. His representation was rejected by the Government whereupon he preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not persuaded that any case for interference with the judgment of the learned Tribunal has been made out. Admittedly, while taking the Competitive Examination the. petitioner had himself declared his date of birth to be 2‑6‑1930. He remained in service for about 35 years thereafter. His name together with his declared date of birth appeared in the gradation lists and civil lists periodically published by the Provincial Government. He did not object to the incorrect publication of his date of birth till a few years before his retirement. The mere fact that he was able to obtain a decree from the Additional District Judge did not advance his case for the Government was not a party to the civil suit brought by him. Though the Government has undoubtedly the power to correct an incorrectly recorded date of birth of a civil servant but the silence of the petitioner over the major portion of his service was such that he did not merit a favourable decision from the Government. We are, therefore, unable to find any substance in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. AA./M‑1939/S Leave refused.