1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3.According to the pleadings of the pies following issues were framed for determination:‑ ISSUES: (1)Whether the actual date of birth of the plaintiff is 4‑10‑1942 and as such the entry in Matriculation Examination Certificate No.20082 is illegal, ultra vires, void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff? OPP. (2)Whether the suit is bad due to misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties? OPD. (3)Whether the suit is within time? Opp. (4)Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the case in hand? OPD. (5)Relief.

4. The parties produced their evidence, oral as well as documentary. After hearing the parties the trial Court held that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit, that all the necessary parties were included in the list of the defendants, that the suit was barred by tithe and that the correct date of birth of Mst. Nazir Begum was 18‑4‑1936. The suit was dismissed. An appeal was preferred which was resisted by the respondents. The Additional District Judge relied on unreported judgment in C.R. No. 800‑D/90 titled as Government of the Punjab through Education Secretary v. Prof. Mst. Jameeda Malik decided on 16‑12‑1990 by my learned brother Mr.Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry, J. in a case of the instant nature who has observed as under:‑‑ "In case the prayer pertaining to defendant No.2 is granted the net result would be that the date of retirement of the petitioner will be automatically postponed/changed from 6‑7‑1990 to 16‑12‑1994. This part of prayer, therefore, directly pertained to the terms and conditions of the plaintiff as civil servant. Now by this time law is absolutely clear on the point that the Court including this Court has no jurisdiction in' respect of the terms and conditions of civil servants."

5. The. Additional District Judge held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in respect of the suit brought by the petitioner‑plaintiff and the appeal was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this revision petition. .

6. I have heard the preliminary arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner who relied on the ruling printed as University of the Punjab, Lahore through Registrar v. Muhammad Aslam Bora, Advocate and another PLD 1988 Lah. 658 and argued that the civil suit was competent and that, the period of limitation shall be computed with effect from the knowledge of the petitioner. He argued that the dispute in hand would not pertain to the terms and conditions of the petitioner and the matter was not to be heard by the Service Tribunal, Punjab. He maintained that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit and that the matter may be remanded to the Additional District Judge for its disposal on merits. I express my inability to agree with him. The view expressed and the dictum enunciated by my learned brother Mr. Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry, J. of the Lahore High Court, Lahore has impressed me and there is no need to express a contrary view thereto. The change of the date of birth of a civil servant is a part of the terms and conditions of his/her service. If the suit of the petitioner is decreed her‑retirement will automatically be postponed/changed from 18‑4‑1996 to 4‑10‑2002. In the light of the aforesaid case‑law the Additional District Judge has expressed the correct view that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction under Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to entertain and decide the suit.

7. I would also like to express my observations about the factual merits a this stage with respect to the effort made by Dr. Nazir Begum, Woman Medical Officer for the change of her date of birth. Para 16 of the aforesaid ruling, PLL 1988 Lahore 658, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has made the case of the petitioner‑plaintiff that much weak that she has to be non‑suited According to the said relevant portion of the said judgment para. 1 of Annexuri B to rule 7.3 of Punjab Financial Rules, Volume I envisaged that in regard to date of birth a declaration made at the time of or for the purpose of entry into Government service shall be deemed to be conclusive unless the Government servant applied for correction of his age as recorded within two years from the date of his entry into Government service. Further Government has reserved the right to make a correction in the recorded age of a Government servant at am time against the interest of that Government servant when it is specified that the age recorded in his Service Book or in the History of Service of a gazettes Government servant is incorrect and has been so recorded with the object the Government servant may derive some unfair advantage there from. Thus it has been made incumbent. On a Government servant to ascertain his date c birth and to produce proper proof in support thereof at the time of his first enter into Government service and no request for correction/alteration in the recorded date of birth should be entertained at all, if made after two years of date of enter into service. As such the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner has enormously damaged her case. She joined service vide order dated 11‑4‑1987 while she instituted the suit for declaration on 20‑5‑1993 i.e. more than six years of her entry into service. She cannot approbate and reprobate by taking the contrary stand. Keeping in view her recorded date of birth as 18‑4‑1936 she has to retire on 17‑4‑1996 and the said date shall fall tomorrow. It is the general trend in the Government servants that at the fag‑end of their service they try to get altered/changed the respective date of birth by considering the retirement as a bolt from the blue while this aspect of the matter should not be considered as such. The respectable retirement of a Government servant is a gift from God which should be accepted in good sense and should not be considered as a harsh matter.

8. Another important point which has stolen the eminence against Dr. Nazir Begum petitioner‑plaintiff is that at the time of her entry in service on 11‑4‑1987 the sanction was accorded to the grant of relaxation in upper age limit to the extent of 17 years in her respect with the approval of the then Chief Minister, Punjab. The said approval has to be granted by the Chief Minister. If her date of birth is changed from 18‑4‑1936 to 4‑10‑1992 as desired and required by her it would be nothing but sanction to the grant of relaxation in upper age limit to the extent of further period from 18‑4‑1936 to 4‑10‑1942 which is not the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or even this Constitutional Court before whom the revision petition has been argued today at the motion stage. This being the position the petitioner has no case. Even if her suit is decreed the Health Department is not bound to execute the same being without jurisdiction in view of the aforesaid reasoning in the matter and thus the matter would become simply an exercise in futility.

9. For what has been said above, Dr. Nazir Begum, Woman Medical Officer petitioner‑plaintiff has no case and I dismiss this revision petition in limine. A. A. /N‑9/L Revision petition dismissed.