1995 PLP 67 (PLC)

The petitioner was appointed as a peon on 13‑4‑1959 and in due course had been promoted as Ferro Printer. He had received a letter dated 22‑1‑1992 informing him that he was due to retire on 16‑7‑1992 on attaining the age of superannuation which was 60 years. He had preferred an appeal but the same came to be turned down. After settling the preliminaries he had filed the petition before the Labour Court.

2. The petition came to be resisted. It was averred that the entry of his age in the Service Book was 17‑7‑1932 but the petitioner had made interpolations thereon making it 1935.

3. The petitioner was his own witness while Masood. H. Zaidi appeared on behalf of, the respondent.

4. I have heard Mr. Qasim Ali learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Eshan Ellahi learned Representative for the respondent.

5. The application seeking employment is on the record. It does not mention age. All that he had stated therein was that he had passed his Middle Standard Examination from the U.P. Board, but even that also was not enclosed with the application. However the entry made in the Service Book according to the respondent was 17‑7‑1935.

6. The original was brought to the Labour Court but a photostat copy has been placed on the record. It clearly shows the date of birth to be 17‑7‑1935 and there appears to be no signs of interpolations to the naked eye. On the showing of Masood H. Zaidi the Service Book remains in the custody of the department and it is not explained as to how the respondent managed to lay his hands on the record and bring about the alleged interpolation. The burden was on the appellants to establish this falsification of document and no attempt was ever made for the same.

7. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal a reference was made to the Legal Department and it was against their opinion that the order of retirement was passed.

8. According to Regulation 18 of the KDA (Employees Service) Regulations, 1973 "Every person appointed by initial recruitment shall, at the time of appointment, declare the date of his birth with confirmatory evidence such as a Matriculation Certificate. School Leaving Certificate or a Municipal Birth Certificate. In the absence of any such documents his age shall be got determined from the authorised Medical Officer."

9. Certainly there is nothing in the hand of the respondent to show that he had given his date of birth under his signature as 30‑7‑1932. Admittedly he was not holding a Matriculation or School Leaving Certificate, nor even a Birth Certificate. In the absence of these documents according to Regulation 18 his age had to be determined by the authorised Medical Officer. There is also a judgment of this Tribunal earlier namely MA. Haleem Qais and another v. Hamid Hussain Khan in Appeal No. KAR‑263 of 1989, decided on 8‑8‑1989 (1990 PLC 53)'wherein the same view was taken.

10. It appears that the Labour Court on the application of the petitioner had passed an order on 14‑7‑1991 wherein it was said that he should not be retired till the next date. I am informed that the respondent is still in service. He will be duly referred to the authorised Medical Officer for the determination of his age and will be entitled to full pay and other benefits till he is duly retired in accordance with the policy laid down in the aforesaid Regulation. I will therefore affirm the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2360/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.