1984 PLP 1180 (PLC(CS))

(b) Industrial dispute‑ ‑‑‑‑ Railway workman ‑ Date of birth entered in service record disputed‑Workman illiterate and service record bearing neither his signatures nor thumb‑impression‑Entry in such record‑Not binding upon workman ‑ Medical certificate not indicating that workman examined for determination of age ‑Workman when applying for correction of entry of age in circumstances, held, should have been medically examined for age‑‑‑Entry in service record indicating that workman was over‑age on date of recruit ment and no relaxation thereof on record‑Retirement order based upon entry in service record despite application of workman for its correction and without getting him medically examined, in circumstances, held, not sustainable‑Appellant (workman), in circumstances awarded re‑instatement with back benefits Pakistan Railways, Personnel Manual, r. 106(b) Appendix I, cl. (4) and r. 915(2)(c) and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3). Ali Hussain Khan for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Yousaf for Respondents. Date of hearing : 22nd February, 1984. The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision, dated 18th April, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for the correctness of his age in the service book.

2. The appellant was recruited initially as a cleaner on 3rd July, 1951. His date of birth was entered in the service record as 1st July, 1923. The appellant asserts that his date of birth is 8th July, 1926. In support of his claim the appellant produced copy of certificate Exh. P: 1 of Divisional Medical Officer, Railways, Rawalpindi. This document appears to have escaped the notice of the learned Presiding Officer as he has not mentioned it in his judgment. But the same is not helpful to the appellant. Firstly, Exh. P. 1 is not a certificate of age and secondly medical certificates not based upon X‑rays of bones cannot be regarded as opinions of expert. Exh. P. l is certificate of fitness for the post of cleaner. It means that the appellant was on 3rd July, 1951 (the date of examination) physically fit for the post of cleaner. In Exh. P. 1 it is not mentioned that he was examined for his age. The age given in Exh. P. 1 may have been entered according to the oral information given by the appellant himself. But the respondents did not follow the rules while refusing to correct the entry of date of birth in the service record and while retiring the appellant, The appellant was retired on 30th June, 1983 as urged during the arguments by the learned counsel for the parties. His retirement thus took place in the pendency of the appeal and continuance of the stay order issued by this Court on 18th June, 1983. The injunction was granted till the decision of the appeal and this order was not got vacated. Admittedly, the appellant is an illiterate person. Since the service record Exh. P. 2 does not bear his signatures or thumb‑impressions, the date of birth entered therein is not binding upon him. In such cases rule 915(2)(c) and Appendix 1, clause (4) to rule 106(b) apply. Clause (4) of appendix 1 provides that in the absence of school leaving certificate the age of a selected candidate as determined by the Railway Medical Officer at the time of his physical examination is to be accepted. Since the Railway Medical Officer failed to examine the appellant for the determination of his age while issuing certificate Exh. P. 1, he should have been again asked to do the same, Since it was not done, at the time the appellant was recruited as a cleaner, he should have been got medically examined for his age when he applied for the correctness of the entry about his age or before retiring him from service. There was absolutely no material before the respondents to hold that the date of birth of the appellant was 1st July, 1923. According t appendix 1 (4), maximum age limit of entry into service is 25 years. There is no evidence that any competent authority relaxed the rule in favour of the appellant at the time of his initial recruitment. According to the entry in the Service book. The appellant was of the age of 29 years and 7 days at the time of his entring into service. So he was, according to service record, over age. If entry in the service record had been correctly recorded, the appellant would not have been recruited without an order of relaxation of the relevant rule. The respondents thus wrongly insisted upon the entry in the service record about the date of birth and should have followed the rules and got the appellant medically examined for age before actually retiring him from service. The appellant has prayed in the appeal for being put back on duty. Such a prayer could not be made by him in his petition because at that time he was in service and had only asked for the correction of record.

3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to get the appellant medically examined by a Railway Medical officer for his age and correct the service record accordingly and retire the appellant on the expiry of the age of superannuation to be determined according to the medical certificate now to be obtained. The Medical Officer shall determine the age basing his opinion on X‑rays of bones etc. and not merely on the basis of general appearance. I am aware of the fact that if the age of appellant is determined by the Medical Officer to be the same as given in the service record, the appellant will remain in service only on account of this order but this would be due to the fault of the respondent in not getting the appellant medically examined before passing the order of retirement. A. E. Appeal accepted.