1981 PLP 798 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑‑ Date of birth‑Entry made in beginning of service‑Change ‑Not to be accepted without definite evidence‑Mere certificate of age by Doctor not sufficient to disregard such entry‑Employee of K.D.A. claiming his retirement as premature on basis of medical certificate indicating his age as 57 years‑‑‑Date of birth recorded 32 years ago indicating his age as 60 years‑Medical Certificate, in circumstances, held, not sufficient and much more definite evidence would be required to show that he was younger than recorded age‑Karachi Development ‑Authority (Employees Service) Regulations, 1973. Syed Muzaffar Imam for Appellant. S.P. Lodhi for respondent. Date of hearing: 7th August, 1980. The respondent, who was ordered to be retired from the service of the K.D.A., the appellant herein, with effect from 5th June, 1979, on the ground of his having attained the age of superannuation challenged the orders of his retirement before the learned Labour Court by way of a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. The learned Labour Court allowed his grievance petition and held the orders of the retirement as invalid on the grounds, firstly, that the age of retirement in the K. D. A. was sixty years while the respondent is only 57 years of age according to the certificate issued by Dr. Zafar Ahmed Siddiqui, the K. D. A.'s Senior Medical Officer and, secondly, the original date of birth of the respondent has not been determined in accordance with the K.D.A. (Employees Service) Regulation, 1973, particularly Regulation 18.

2. I have heard Mr. Muzaffar Imam, the learned counsel for the K.D.A., and Mr. S.P. Lodhi, who appeared for the respondent workman. In my view both the grounds on which the learned Labour Court has allowed the respondent's grievance petition cannot be sustained. According to the certificate issued by Dr. Zafar Ahmed Siddiqui, the respondent was physically and mentally fit for post of guage reader. Furthermore he is shown to be 57 years of age as per his own statement and by appearance. There was thus no determination of his age on the basis of any accepted medical examination. No doubt Dr. Zafar Ahmed in his evidence before the learned Labour Court stated that he has determined the age of the respondent as 57 years, but as the certificate makes it clear this was on the basis of respondent's own statement and also his mere appearance it carries little weight. Moreover Regulation 18 of the K.D.A. (Employees' Service) Regulations, 1973, lays down the mode for the determination of the age of an employee on his first appointment or initial recruitment. The record produced shows that the respondent was originally appointed in the K.M.C. on 1st August, 1948, and was transferred to the Karachi Joint Water Board, the predecessor of the K.D.A. on 1st November, 1949. Both in the service sheet of the respond ent in K.M.C. and with the K.D.A. the date of birth of the respondent has been shown as 6th June, 1979. The 1973 K.D.A. Regulations were framed long after the above entries and, therefore, cannot be made applicable to the said entries: There is no requirement in the Regulations that the ages of old employees were to be regulated in the manner as provided in Regulation

18. The entries in the service sheets of the respondent in the K.M.C. and K.D.A. bear thumb impressions of the respondent and appear to have been based on the information supplied by the respondent. Since the respondent had given a specific date of hiss birth 32 years ago he cannot now claim that he is much younger than the date he then gave. In any case much more definite evidence would be required to show that in fact he is younger than the date he gave in his service sheets many years ago than the age certificate issued by Dr. Zafar Ahmed.

3. As the respondent was retired on the basis of the specific date of birth mentioned in his service books both in the K.M.C. and K.D.A. several years ago and no violation of any service rules is shown to have been committed in retiring him, on the basis of the said entries, the resp ondent has no valid legal case against the orders of his retirement. I would accordingly set aside the impugned decision and allow this appeal.