Correction of date of birth

2023 CLC 776 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.42Correction of date of birthBurden of proof

Applicant filed suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the respondents for the correction of his date of birth

Trial Court dismissed the suit and appeal thereagainst was also dismissed by the Appellate Court

Held, that as to the burden of proof in respect of issue laid upon the applicant and he in support of his version examined himself and his brother

Applicant deposed that his actual date of birth was 13.09.1996

Applicant applied for issuance of CNIC mentioning his date of birth as 13.09.1996 but NADRA authorities mentioned it incorrectly in CNIC as 01.01.1989 instead of 13.09.1996

Applicant further deposed that against such a mistake in his CNIC, he approached NADRA but they refused and asked to bring a Court decree, therefore, applicant filed present suit

During cross examination, applicant admitted that he knew that CNIC was issued at the age of 18 years

Applicant also admitted that if his date of birth was counted from 1996 then till 2010, when he applied for CNIC, his age was 14 years

Applicant also admitted that his educational documents had been issued seven years later after the issuance of his CNIC

In support of his contention, applicant also examined his brother, who deposed that the actual date of birth of the applicant was 13.09.1996

Respondents examined Assistant Superintendent, NADRA Office, who deposed that in the year 2010 applicant applied for obtaining his CNIC and submitted a CNIC form showing his date of birth as 01.01.1989 and not 13.09.1996 and on the information provided by the applicant, NADRA authorities issued CNIC to the applicant

In his deposition, said witness also clarified that if the date of birth of the applicant was considered as 13.09.1996, the age of the applicant was just 14 years when he applied for CNIC, which was against the registration policy

In cross-examination the material substance in respect of the date of birth of the applicant could not be shattered

Applicant himself failed to get his date of birth corrected by filling up the required form timely when he originally applied for his CNIC, which request after ten years of the issuance of the said CNIC could not be allowed

Applicant himself applied for the issuance of Smart Card in the year 2010 when he himself declared his date of birth as 01.01.1989 which showed that at the time of issuance of CNIC, he was 21 years old

Applicant definitely would have used his CNIC for ten years, and thereafter filed the present suit in the year 2021

Applicant did not produce any educational documents as to when he obtained his first CNIC

All the documents were issued later than the issuance of CNIC

Hence, authenticity and legitimacy of the documents were highly questionable

Applicant had failed to produce his B-Form, FRC, Birth Certificate or any documentary proof to show that there was any difference of the age inter se with his other family members

Before the Trial Court, applicant appeared in the witness box being not aware regarding the spelling of the word "Metric" (the exams he claimed to have passed) which showed that he was probably still an uneducated person and both the education and birth related documents were managed

Revision application was dismissed.

2023 PLC 30 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Correction of date of birthScope

Date of birth once recorded in the service record of a civil servant cannot be altered or changed except in accordance with the exceptions provided in the rules itself.

2023 PLC 30 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

R.5Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012), S.33Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Non-statutory corporationConstitutional petitionMaintainabilityCorrection of date of birthScope

Petitioner challenged dismissal of his grievance petition under S. 33 of Industrial Relations Act, 2012, for correction of date of birth in service record

Contention of petitioner was that decree passed by Civil Court whereby his suit for declaration and mandatory injunction for correction of his date of birth was passed was not considered

Validity

Petitioner had not arrayed his employer i.e. an Electric Supply Company as party in the suit, therefore, its implication or binding effect could not be pressed into service against the company being out of the array of the defendants of that suit

Petitioner intended to get his date of birth altered in service record after morethan two decades

Date of birth once recorded in the service record of a civil servant could not be altered or changed except in accordance with the exceptions provided in the rules

School leaving certificate relied upon by petitioner was issued after more than three decades, therefore, veracity of the same, without putting it to judicial scrutiny, could not be accepted

Petitioner had filed the grievance petition after more than 30 years

Rule 5 of Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Date of Birth) Rules, 1994, provided that once date of birth was declared and recorded at the time of entry in service, same could not be altered

Petitioner was an employee of a company which was a non-statutory corporation and the relationship between company and its employees was that of master and servant

Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed.

2022 YLR 952 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 42Suit for declarationCorrection of date of birthLimitationScopePetitioner, in a suit for correction of date of birth, was non-suited on the ground that her suit was barred by timeValidityLimitation was a mixed question of law and facts which could only be resolved after recording evidenceNo evidence having been recorded in the case, impugned judgments and decrees were not sustainable

Petitioner had relied upon her school leaving certificate and also upon a certificate issued by the concerned Union Council and in the light of referred certificates, prima facie, her suit appeared to be within time

Revision petition was allowed, impugned judgments were set aside and the Trial Court was directed to decide the petitioner's case on merits.

2022 YLR 1567 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 42Suit for declarationCorrection of date of birthEvidentiary value of academic credentialsBurden of proofScopePetitioner filed suit for correction of date of birth mentioned in her Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC)Trial Court and Appellate Court concurrently dismissed the suitValidity

Date of birth of petitioner had been recorded in the matriculation certificate as 01-05-1994, but it was recorded in the CNIC as 01-05-1984

Academic credentials had strong presumption of truth specially when they were not properly rebutted

Burden in the case was on the respondents to rebut the contents of matriculation certificate through reliable documents but they had failed to controvert the same

Revision petition was allowed, impugned judgments were set aside and the suit was decreed as prayed for.

2021 YLR 1288 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 42Suit for declarationCorrection of date of birthScope

Plaintiff filed suit against Education Board (Board) for declaration to the effect that his correct date of birth was 25-06-1998 but it had incorrectly been mentioned as 25-09-1996 in his matriculation certificate and required rectification

Trial Court and appellate court concurrently decreed the suit

Validity

Admission and Withdrawal Register as well as School Leaving Certificate of the plaintiff showed his date of birth as 25-06-1998 while his admission date was mentioned as 04-04-2002

Date of birth of sister of plaintiff as per her matriculation certificate was 13-03-1997, thus, keeping in view the date of birth of plaintiff, the age gap between the siblings was about fifteen months, which was quite natural

Board was also unclear about the actual date of birth of the plaintiff because, on the one hand, it had placed reliance on Admission Form of plaintiff showing his date of birth as 25-06-1996 and on the other hand, plaintiff's Registration Card reflected his date of birth as 25-09-1996

Courts below had rightly appreciated the evidence on the record while decreeing the suit

Constitutional petition, being devoid of substance, was dismissed, in circumstances.

2020 YLR 2266 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 42Suit for declarationCorrection of date of birthContention of plaintiff was that his correct date of birth was 08-04-1997 instead of 08.04.1988

Defendants had contended that computerized National Identity Card was issued to the plaintiff on the basis of information provided on his behalf which did amount to admission

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Plaintiff had adduced unimpeachable and cogent documentary evidence to prove his claim

Defendants had not been able to rebut the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of plaintiff

Findings recorded by the Courts below were result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence

Courts below had committed material irregularity and illegality while passing the impugned judgments

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside and suit was decreed as prayed for

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

2019 YLR 2354 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 42Suit for declarationCorrection of date of birthScopePlaintiff filed suit for correction of her date of birth in her matriculation certificateTrial Court and appellate court concurrently decreed the suitValidity

Plaintiff had produced her school leaving certificate, salary slip/service record, copy of Computerized National Identity Card, copy of Family Registration Certificate and copy of Birth Registration certificate

Said documents were corroborated by four reliable witnesses in their statements recorded by Trial Court, whereas defendants failed to produce a single oral or documentary evidence in the Trial Court to rebut/ controvert the averments of plaint except the statement of their representative

Concurrent findings rendered by appellate court and Trial Court, being unexceptional, were not interfered by Chief Court through its revisional jurisdiction

Revision petition was dismissed.

2018 PLC(CS) 68 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Arts. 199 & 212Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityCivil serviceCorrection of date of birthScopeWithdrawal of constitutional petition without permission to file fresh oneFiling of fresh constitutional petitionEffectPresent matter was with regard to terms and conditions of civil servantsPetitioners/employees had adequate and efficacious remedy before Service Tribunal

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could only be invoked in exceptional circumstances which lacked in the present case

Factual controversies with regard to actual date of birth was involved in the matter

Petitioners/employees had withdrawn their earlier constitutional petition unconditionally

Fresh constitutional petition was not competent which was dismissed .

2018 PLC(CS)N 182 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Correction of date of birthPlea of plaintiff, a civil servant was that his date of birth was 01-01-1959 instead of 01-01-1956Suit was decreed concurrentlyValidity

Plaintiff-employee remained satisfied with the entries in his service record, National Identity Card and other educational credentials for several years

High Court observed that tendency amongst government employees had developed to change date of birth closer to age of superannuation

Government employee was supposed to have knowledge of incorrect date of birth and said issue must have been agitated within a period of two years from entry into service

Plaintiff -employee, in the present case, had neither impleaded principal of concerned school for verification and correction of his educational credentials nor National Database and Registration Authority on the panel of defendants

Even service record after entry into government service had not been rectified within the mandatory period of two years

Courts below had rendered findings in violation of law, impugned judgments and decrees were set aside

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

2018 PLC(CS)N 44 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

R. 12-ACivil servantCorrection of date of birthRequirements

Contention of petitioner-employee at the time of retirement was that his date of birth was 05-01-1958 in stead of 31-05-1953

Validity

Petitioner-employee filed suit for correction of his date of birth but he did not array his parent department as defendant in the same which was a requirement under the law

Petitioner-employee remained silent with regard to his entries in the service book as well as CNIC for about three decades

Date of birth of employee could be corrected within two years from the date of initial appointment

Decree of civil court obtained by the petitioner-employee with regard to his age was not binding or applicable to the government department as the department had not been arrayed in the proceedings before civil court

Correction in the date of birth of civil servant could not be allowed at the stage of retirement

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

2017 YLRN 41 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 29 & 31Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42Suit for declarationCorrection of date of birthBar of suitContention of plaintiff was that his date of birth was 20-10-1993 instead of 20-10-1992Suit was decreed concurrentlyValidity

Plaintiff had failed to prove through cogent evidence that his actual date of birth was 20-10-1993 rather than 20-10-1992

Specific bar upon the jurisdiction of court had been imposed

Court was bound to examine the pleadings and evidence on record

No malice, ill-will or any bias had been alleged against the Education Board

Provisions of Ss. 29 & 31 of Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 were attracted to the present case

Trial Court had no jurisdiction to decree the present suit

Findings recorded by both the courts below were not sustainable which were reversed

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below were set aside being contrary to law and facts of the case

Suit of plaintiff was dismissed

Revision was allowed in circumstances.