' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 24-11-2003 of the Federal Serice Tribunal, allowing Service Appeal No,237 of 2002 wherein respondent Nol.
Agitated his date of birth as 22-7-1948 instead of 22-7-1942 and was retired from service on 21-7- 2002.
2. Respondent No,1 joined the petitioner University as Research Investigator in 1974 and in due course rose to the post of Assistant Professor (BPS-19) in 1996. On 21-6-2001 he was served with a notice for retirement w,e,f, 21-7-2002 on attaining the age of superannuation. He agitated against this notice and represented to the University that his correct date of birth was 22-7-1948 and thus, he could be -due for retirement on 21-7-2008. His representation was rejected by the University and he was retired from service w,e,f, 21-7-2002 vide Office Order dated 5-7-2002. After submission of departmental appeal to the Chancellor of University and receiving no response he invoked the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal.
3.Appeal was contested on the ground that the respondent's date of _birth in fact was 22-7-1942 which was eyident from the Matriculation certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad, face sheet of the Annual Confidential Reports filled in by the respondent from 1983 onward and the certificate of Registration issued by the Pakistan Engineering Council in 1987. Conversely the respondent produced another certificate from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad, as well as Pakistan Engineering Council tending to show that his date of birth was 22-7-1948. On consideration of the parties respective contentions and the documents on record, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the date of birth of the respondent i,e, 21-7-1942 was unwarranted and determined his date of birth as 22-7- 1948 as contended by the respondent. It is, therefore, that the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against such findings.
4. Respondent No,1 had filed a caveat and the notice was issued to him well in time for today's hearing but he has not turned up. It is inter alia contended that the Tribunal misconstrued the documentary evidence inasmuch as Matriculation certificate being primary evidence of date of birth of an employee and face sheets of ACRs filled in by the respondent himself were not given due weight and reliance was erroneously placed on documents subsequently arranged and manipulated by the respondent after receiving the notice of retirement one year in advance.
Additionally the petitioner has filed certified copies of the extract from the Primary School General Register and a certificate of school leaving purportedly issued by the Headmaster of Government Primary School Ghotana Taluka, Hyderabad reflecting his date of birth as 22-7-1942.
5. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the question as to whether learned Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal on scrutiny of the evidence on record and whether the judgment of the Tribunal does not suffer from misconstruction of evidence and misinterpretation of rule 171 of the Sindh Civil Servants Service Rules.
6. Operation of the impugned judgment is suspended till the hearing of appeal which will be fixed for hearing at an early date.