' CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.---Through the present petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has challenged his retirement order dated 15-6-2010 on the ground that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in his service book at the time of joining his service.
2. The cause of action as given in the writ petition is that the petitioner is presently posted at Dera Ghazi Khan, Rajanpur who joined his service as Khateeb in Auqaf Department on 26-2-1976. The petitioner claims that at the time of his recruitment, he informed the department about his correct date of birth i.e, 5-12-1952 but the department's clerk recorded his date of birth in the Service Book wrongly as 28-8-1950.
' Since the petitioner had no access to the service book as it was in the custody of the respondent department, he could not verify during his whole service that his date of birth has wrongly been entered in the service book. It was for the first time when he came to know that his date of birth has wrongly been recorded by the department when the petitioner was informed by the department that he was going to retire on 27-8-2010 for the reason that his date of birth as recorded in the Service Book was 28-8-1950 and not 5-12-1952 as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner made departmental representation which also failed. In support of his contentions, the petitioner has also produced copy each of CNIC, Domicile and Certificate of Shahada-tul-Aalmia', issued by the Tanzeem-ul-Madaris. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner provided his correct date of birth, i.e, 5-12-1952 at the time of his entry into government service but the, concerned clerk of the department wrongly recorded his date of birth in the service book as 28-8-1950 for which the petitioner cannot be penalized. Learned counsel avers that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 5-12-1952 which is evident from his CNIC, Domicile and certificate of Shahada-tul- Aalmia. Learned counsel prays that the impugned order dated 15-6-2010 be set aside and the petitioner be allowed to complete his service till his superannuation in accordance with his date of birth i.e, 5-12-1952. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the dictums laid down in cases Executive Council, Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad through Chairman and another v. M. Tufail Hashmi (2010 SCM R 1484) and Province. Of Sindh v. Malik Ghulam Hussain (2002 SCM R 911).
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent-department has vehemently controverted this writ petition on the ground that the entry of date of birth in service book made at the time of recruitment is final which can only be challenged within two years of joining service. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner was employed on 26-2-1976 whereafter seniority lists mentioning date of birth of the petitioner have been prepared and circulated but the petitioner remained mum and at this stage, the plea of the petitioner for change in date of birth cannot be entertained. Learned counsel prays that this writ petition has no merit, therefore, it be dismissed. He has relied upon the law laid down in case Haq Nawaz Kiani v. The Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Civil Secretariat Lahore and others (1998 SCM R 801).
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with their able assistance. The law cited at the bar has also been examined.
6. The petitioner was employed as Khateeb on 26-2-1976 in Auqaf Department. On his appointment, service book was prepared and particulars of the petitioner including his date of birth as 28-8-1950 were recorded. It is worth mentioning that such particulars are always provided by the employees themselves. The petitioner himself verified his particulars including the date of birth by putting his signature as well as thumb and finger impressions.
7. During his long period of service, seniority lists have been moved by the department wherein date of birth of each individual is always mentioned but the petitioner never challenge the same.
Now when the petitioner has been retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, he has challenged his entry of date of birth just to increase the period of his service which cannot be allowed at this stage.
8. So far as the documents relied upon by the petitioner are concerned, all these documents were prepared much after making of entry of date of birth in the service book. The CNIC of the petitioner was issued in the year 2007, the domicile on 2-11-1987 and the certificate of Shahadat-tul-Aalmia on 10-3-1986. As such, these documents cannot override the entry of date of birth which was made much earlier than issuance of the said documents.
9. According to prevailing instructions issued vide notification No,SORII(S&GAD)6-4/75, dated 4-9- 1975, the entry of date of birth recorded in the service book can only be challenged within two years commencing from entry into service, whereafter it becomes final and cannot be assailed on any ground. Other documents with different date of birth cannot override such entry made in service book for the purposes of retirement of a government servant. Moreover, a government servant cannot be permitted to dramatically announce change in his date of birth specially at the verge of his retirement pretending that the date of birth earlier recorded was erroneous. I am fortified by the ratio decidendi laid down in case titled "Hag Nawaz Kiani v. The Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and others"; reported as 1998 SCM R
801. The law relied upon learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the peculiar circumstances of the case in hand.
10. Even otherwise, the petitioner was a government employee. The matter relates to terms and conditions of service of the petitioner. The petitioner might approach the Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. This Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. The petitioner cannot agitate his grievance through constitutional petition.
11. For what has been discussed above, the instant writ petition is bereft of any substance, hence dismissed.