' SHOAIB SAEED, J.--- This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15-1-2013 passed by respondent No,1 whereunder petitioner stood retired w.e.f, 31-12-2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed in the Health Department as Midwife on 23-7-1990; that as asserted the date of birth of petitioner is 31-12-1953 and her date of retirement after attaining 60 years age of her superannuation will be 31-12-2013 but respondent No,1 passed order of pre-mature retirement vide order dated 15-1-2013 whereunder petitioner stood retired w.e.f, 31-12-2012; that it transpired on 20-1-2013 that she has been forcibly retired. On attaining knowledge petitioner tried to obtain orders which were made available on 15-2-2013 whereafter grievance notice was served but to no effect.
3. Learned counsel contended that petitioner was made to retire almost a year before her actual date of retirement which was 31-12-2013. Reliance was placed on birth certificate in the name of the petitioner, according to which, date of birth recorded therein is 31-12-1953, so is the date incorporated in her identity card. Date of retirement is to be reckoned from the entries recorded in the said documents, therefore, her age of superannuation should be 31-12-2013. The office order dated 15-1-2013 mentioning petitioner's age of retirement from Government service on 31-12-2012 and her date of birth 1-1-1953 is against facts and unlawful.
4. Conversely, learned A.A.-G. drew attention to the Birth Certificate wherein the date of entry for recording of birth is 4-1-2013 and date of birth recorded in the relevant column is 31-12-2013. It appears petitioner. for the first time got recorded her birth and procured birth certificate such a belated stage of her life with a motive in order to extract financial gains for an extended period to which the petitioner is not entitled. Date of birth as recorded in birth certificate is incorrect. It was also contended that the date of birth is to be reckone'd from service book which in the petitioner's case is 1-1-1953.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. According to Rule 12(a) of Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, the date of birth of an employee once recorded at the time of joining government service is final and thereafter no alteration in the date is permissible and such date is to be reckoned as recorded in the service book. Petitioner during his long service must have filled his date of birth on many forms and proformas so it is inconceivable that on verge of retirement she came to know that her date of birth mentioned in the service book was incorrect. The date 4-1-2013 for recording of birth shows that the certificate was obtained at the time of retirement with ulterior motives. It has become a common practice that civil servants alter their age closer to retirement just to derive financial benefits at the cost of others. The alteration is an afterthought as during decades of service petitioner did not move any application for correction of date of birth. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy that constitutional jurisdiction in matters regarding terms and conditions of service of civil servants is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
7. In view of the above, this writ petition being without merit is dismissed.