1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑‑‑The appellant lshaat Ali Khan joined Police Department as Wireless Operator on 27‑4‑1954. He was later taken up as Lower Division Clerk on 3‑7‑1961 and was subsequently promoted as a Stenographer in May, 1975. In his Service Book which was prepared at the time of his training following his initial appointment as Wireless Operator, his birth date was mentioned as 24‑4‑1935. As per said birth date he was due to retire in April, 1995. We are informed that he has actually retired from service in April last. However, he challenged the birth date in his departmental appeal filed on 21‑3‑1994 before the Secretary, Home Department but the same was rejected vide Home Secretary's order dated 23‑8‑1994. The said order was admittedly communicated to the appellant by the S.S.F., District South, Karachi's letter dated 22‑1‑1995. The present appeal was filed on 7‑2‑1995 after receipt of the S.S.P's. said letter. We heard the arguments of the appellant's learned counsel as well as the arguments of Mr. Azizur Rehman representing the official respondents. We also went through the relevant documents available in the case file. The appeal was dismissed by short order dated 5‑6‑1995 which reads as under:‑‑‑ "Appellant and his counsel present. Mr. Azizur Rehman present on behalf of official respondents. Heard arguments of the learned counsel of the parties. For reasons to be recorded later on, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs." Following are the reasons in support of the above short order. Before going into the merits of the case, we would like to dispose the legal objection which was raised at the time of admission of the appeal to regular hearing as regards the maintainability of the appeal. The objection was that the appellant had not exhausted the departmental remedy as required by proviso (a) to section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, before approaching this Tribunal in the present appeal. In this connection the appellant's learned counsel referred to appellant's representation dated 21‑3‑1994 addressed to the Home Secretary, contending that said representation was nothing but departmental appeal against the incorrect entry of the appellant's birth date in his service. If the contention of the appellant's learned counsel were accepted the departmental appeal was obviously hopelessly time‑barred. According to appellant's own admission his service book was prepared while he was under training as Wireless Operator on 27‑4‑1954. If he was not satisfied with his birth date entered in the service book he should have challenged the correctness of the entry within three years time. In other words he should have filed the departmental appeal against the incorrect entry of his birth date as far back as 1957. Instead he filed the representation after more than three decades on 21‑3‑1994. It may be argued that it was for the departmental Appellate Authority to consider such delay in filing the departmental appeal and reject the same on that ground but there is no such indication in the impugned order passed by the Home Department. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:‑‑ "Competent Authority has considered the request of Mr. Ishaat Ali Stenographer, regarding his change of date of birth and rejected the same. " The above order is obviously silent as to whether the limitation was taken into account and was inter alia the ground which influenced the thinking of the Home Secretary. In absence of such indication it would be reasonable to presume that among other things, the delay in filing the departmental appeal had also influenced the Home Secretary. The possibility cannot be ruled out that he rejected the departmental appeal on the sole ground of limitation. In any case we are of the view that the Home Secretary must have been influenced by the inordinate delay made by the appellant in challenging the entry with regard to his birth date. Even on merits the appellant had absolutely no case. As disclosed in para. 2 of the written statement, consequent upon his appointment as Wireless Operator on 27‑4‑1954 the appellant was issued a medical certificate by the Medical Surgeon, Karachi, certifying him to be of 19 years of age (i.e. his birth date being 24‑4‑1935). It is also mentioned in the written statement vide para. 4 that the appellant appeared in Secondary School Certificate Examination in May, 1958 at Lahore when he recorded his birth date as being 1‑10‑1940. This was not denied by the appellant or his learned counsel. So the much trumpeted matric certificate on which the appellant has made reliance was issued more than 4 years after his appointment and moreover the entries made in the said certificate were based on appellant's own information. Obviously such certificate cannot be held as authentic overriding the entries already made in the record. We wonder why the appellant took so many years after issuance of the so‑called Matric certificate in challenging the entries with regard to his birth date. Apart from above if the birth date as recorded in the so‑called matric certificate was accepted as correct then appellant's age would be little over thirteen years at the time of his appointment as Wireless Operator. Thus, the absurdity of the appellant's plea that his correct birth date was 1‑10‑1940 as recorded in the so‑called matric certificate and not 24‑4‑1935 as entered in his service book stood completely exposed. It was not possible for us to accept the position that appellant was considered fit enough for the appointment as Wireless Operator at the age of 13 years. For above reasons since the hollowness of the appellant's claim was fully established, we dismissed his appeal by short order as mentioned above. H.B.T./15/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.