1984 PLP 425 (PLC)

‑‑Date of birth‑Entry in service record mentioned at time of joining service More reliable and has preference over school leaving certificate. Ch. Altaf Hussain with Hamid‑ud‑Din Qureshi for Appellant. Nazir Ahmad Naz for Respondents. Date of hearing : 19th March, 1983. As the point with regard to the age of superannuation is common in all the three appeals captioned above, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment, in which Allah Bakhsh will be des cribed as respondent No. 1, Islam‑ud‑Din as respondent No. 2, and Noor Muhammad as respondent No. 3.

2. All the three respondents were retired at the age of 55 years and they challenged the orders before Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan in separate grievance petitions which were accepted vide orders dated 20th December, 1981 and 28th February, 1982, respectively. All the respondents claimed that the age of superannuation was 60 years, whereas the contention of the appellant was that in the 87th meeting of the Board the age was fixed as 55 years. Respondent No. 1 also challenged the date of birth mentioned in service record as January, 1924. He contended that his date of birth was 9th February, 1927. The learned lower Court, relying upon the copy of birth entry Exh. P‑6, has decided that the correct date of birth is 9th February, 1927. The finding is correct. Where birth entry is available and it has been found to be correct, no other kind of evidence about the age is acceptable. The birth was entered in the reg1ster on 22nd July, 1927 only after 22 days of the and not when dispute about age arose. So, Exh. P‑6 has great evidentiary value in preference to the medical certificate which is based on general appearance. So, I uphold the finding that the date of birth of respondent No. 1 is 9th February, 1927.

3. Respondent No. 3 also disputed his date of birth and relied upon school leaving certificate Exh. P‑

2. The learned lower Court did not rely upon this document, nor upon Exh. R‑3 medical certificate. He relied upon service record Exh. R‑

1. If copy of birth entry had been produced, it could have been given preference over the service record, which is prepared on the information given by the employee concerned. Since at the time of entering into service, there was no dispute about the age, the respondent No. 3 gave his date of birth as 1923, now he cannot turn round and challenge it. The learned lower Court, therefore, rightly relied upon service record and gave it preference over the school leaving certificate Exh. P‑2.

4. Before the rules of 1959 there was no provision of retirement. Rule 33.1 of 1959 rules fixed the age of retirement as 60 years. Rile 33.2 gave powers to the competent authority to scrutinize the case of employees who were about to complete the service of 25 years of age of 55 years and if not satisfied with the work or performance could compulsorily retire either on completion of 25 years service or on attaining the age of 55 years, It was amended in December, 1967 and the age was reduced to 55 years. In 1974 some further amendment was made but the age of superannuation was kept at 55 years. In November 1967 Regulations No. 19 was added to the regulations of 1965 which fixed the age of retire ment as 55 years. In 49th meeting held on 11th January, 1977 rule 33.1 was amended by adopting Government Notification No. SOR‑1 (S&GAD) 4‑1 /72 (policy), dated 9th December, 1976 and age of superannuation was raised to 60 years without any condition or qualification. Rule 33.1 uptil now stands as amended on 11th January, 1977 and the age of super annuation is 60 years. The appellant wrongly relies upon 87th meeting of the Board held on 30th June, 1980. No amendment was made in the said meeting. Regulation No. 19 was only noted down by the Board. Noting of an existing regulations was not sufficient to do away with rule 33.1 If the Board wanted to revert to the position which ex1sted previous to 49th meeting held on 11th January. 1977 it should have in 87th meeting amended rule 33.1 instead of simply noting down Regulation No.

19. On the amendment of rule 33.1 on 11th July 1977, Regulation No. 19 had become redundant as disparity in rules cannot be recognised. It was decided by the Board in 49th meeting that the age of superannua tion of all Board employees would be 60 years. The rule was thus made applicable to all Board employees without any exception. Since rule 33.1 had not been amended, thereafter, and thereby the age of superannuation reduced to 55 years, it could not be taken that the age was 55 years.

5. On behalf of respondent No. 3 cross‑objections have also been filed which are that Mr. Said Ahmad, Court Clerk, who presented the appeal had no authority letter in this behalf, that memo of appeal did not bear the signatures of D1strict Manager Mureed Sultan or Chairman, that no power‑of‑attorney or letter of authority was given to Mr. Abdus Samad Sheikh, General Manager, Admin1stration, that no power‑of‑attorney was executed in favour of Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar, Advocate, that according to rule 3 of 1972 rules of the Board, only the Chairman has authority to sue and such powers were not trans ferable and that if the Chairman had delegated any such powers to the General Manager, it was without jurisdiction. No reply to the cross -objections were filed on behalf of the appellant. So far as this contention is concerned that Mr. Said Ahmad, Court Clerk, had no letter of author ity to present the appeal and Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar had no authority to sign the memo of appeal, no power‑of‑authority or letter of authority is on the file. Regarding the remaining objections, the learned counsel for the respondent did not show any rule, so they are rejected.

6. As upshot of the observations made above I do not find any force in the appeals and dismiss them. The appeal against respon dent No. 3 is not competent as it was not presented by some duly authorised person. A. E. Appeal dismissed.