' AZIZ-UR-RAHMAN, J.--- Through this Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner has impugned the Office Memorandam No,AP0306- 302/E# 101564 dated 7-2-2013 [Annexure 'A' to the Petition] issued by the OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT HEAD OFFICE ISLAMABAD, whereby the petitioner's application dated 7-10-2012 for correction in the petitioner's 'DATE OF BIRTH' was once again considered but correction so sought in the petitioner's 'DATE OF BIRTH' was refused/ regretted. The prayer(s) sought in the Petition runs as follows:---
(a) It may be declared that correct date of birth of the petitioner is 11-6-1956 as corrected by the competent authority on 12-4-1982 before entering in the services of the respondents and that respondents are bound under the law to make the correction in the service record of the petitioner.
(b) It may be declared that the office memorandam dated 27-9-2012 and 7-2-2013 of respondents Nos. I and 2 regretting to make the correction in date of birth as 11-6-1956 is illegal without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
(c) To direct the respondents to correct the date of birth as 11-6-1956 in his service record.
(d) To issue directions to the respondents restraining them not to act upon their office memorandum dated 21-12-2012 regarding retirement of the petitioner on 5-6-2013 till disposal of this Petition.
(e) That the cost of the petition be borne by the respondents.
(f) Any other relief may kindly be awarded in favour of petitioner as this honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances."
2. Briefly the facts giving rise to the filing of the instant Constitutional Petition are:--
3. Per averments, the petitioner was appointed in Oil and Gas Development Company Ltd.
[hereinafter abbreviated as OGDCL] as Jr. Engineer (Mech) in the year, 1985. Lastly the petitioner was holding/ posted as Manager (Mech) P&P/ Field Manager, Kunner LPG plant Tando Jam. [P.No, of the petitioner is E#101564].
4. The petitioner's 'date of birth' [hereinafter abbreviated as DoB) as claimed, per petitioner's record is 11-6-1956. However, perhaps due to mistake of the Education Authorities, it was recorded as 6-6- 1953 instead of 11-6-1956. Upon getting knowledge, sometime in the year, 1982, petitioner approached the Education Authorities by way of filing an application along with other papers for correction in his DoB. Accordingly, the petitioner's DoB was corrected by the defunct E.D.O.
Education Jacobabad vide order No,EDO (Edu)/Admn-/II-329/11 of 3-11-2011.
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order fresh 'MATRICULATION CERTIFICATE' was issued to the petitioner in June, 2012 from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education [hereinafter abbreviated as BISE] Hyderabad, wherein petitioner's DoB was shown/changed to 11-6-1956 from 6-6-1953.
6. Thereafter, before respondents Nos.1 and 2, an application was made for recording the petitioner's date of birth in his service record as 11-6-1956. Such change in DoB nonetheless was regretted. Under circumstances, on 7-10-2012, another application for re-consideration of petitioner's request was made to respondents Nos.1 and 2 but again the same was regretted through the impugned Office Memorandum of 7-2-2013.[Annexure-'A' to the petition].
7. Per petitioner assertions, in the case of Dr. Abdul Jabbar Qureshi [Deputy Chief Mech. Officer] his DoB has been corrected by respondents Nos.1 and 2 in compliance with order dated 19-11-2009 passed in C.P. No,D-522 of 2009. [Dr. Abdul Jabbar Qureshi v. OGDCL and others]. Likewise, the date of birth of two other officials namely Karam Elahi [Vibrator Operator 01-1] and Daryafat Khan, [Shooter C1-I] has also been corrected. Per assertion, correction in the petitioner's DoB, notwithstanding the above was regretted/refused.
8. On filing of the instant Constitutional petition, when it came-up before the court on 2-4-2013, while issuing pre-admission notices to the respondents, the petitioner's counsel was put on notice/directed to satisfy this court about maintainability of the instant petition.
9. On service upon, respondents filed their comments. Per comments, petitioner as an employee of Oil and Gas Development Company Limited [OGDCL], was appointed on 28-10-1985. At the time of induction in service the documents/papers submitted by the petitioner were as follows:---
(a) Secondary School Certificate issued by BISE Hyderabad.
(b) Petitioner' s CNIC No,401-53-026018.
(c) Certificate of Registration with Pakistan Engineering Council [PEC],
(d) Personal Bio-data signed by the petitioner with the application dated 21-7-1984 for his appointment.
(e) Personal Data Form,
(f) Verification Roll duly filled-in and signed by the petitioner on 28-10-1985.
[As annexures 'A' to 'F' respectively to the respondent's comments].
10. The petitioners' DoB in all aforesaid documents is 6-6-1953. The alleged correction in DoB by the defunct E.D.O. Education, Jacobabad, per comments is nothing but fraudulent manipulation. Per stand of the respondents, E.D.O. EDUCATION' was not competent authority as claimed to order change in the DoB of the petitioner from 6-6-1953 to 11-6-1956. Further, Civil Courts of 'competent jurisdiction' can only pass appropriate order and that too after recording of evidence viz-a-viz correction of petitioner's DoB because it is a matter of serious controversy between the parties.
11. Besides, since 5-6-2013, the petitioner stood retired from service [i.e, on attaining the age of superannuation], therefore, the correction in DoB of the petitioner by the 'defunct E.D.O. Education'
Jacobabad on 3-11-2011 is of no avail/benefit to the petitioner. Such alleged correction in the year, 2011 besides mala fide, afterthought is unauthorized and unlawful.
12. The applications made by the petitioner to the respondents for correction of DoB, of course, were considered/examined in the light of Notification No,S.R.O.-521(I)/2000 dated 31-7-2000 of Cabinet Secretariat Establishment Division Government of Pakistan, Circular No,AA-0103-15 dated 16-10- 2001 and Circular No,AA-0103-15 dated 29-12-2006, however, the request made therein was found unreasonable and unjustified thus declined.
13. The case of the petitioner as claimed was/is not at par with that of Abdul Jabbar Qureshi [Deputy Chief Medical Officer], Karam Elahi [vibrator Operator 01-I] and Daryafat Khan [Shooter Cl- I]. The same, per comments of the respondents, besides irrelevant is quite distinct and stand on different footings. Further, disputed questions of facts cannot be considered and/or looked into under the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
14. On 21-8-2013, when the matter came-up before us, we heard Syed Muhammad Saulat Rizvi advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Javed Iqbal advocate for respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh, D.A.-G. respectively and also scanned the releyant record with their able assistance.
15. At the very outset, Mr. Muhammad Saulat Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioner while defending, the maintainability of the Constitutional petition, vehemently argued that this court, indeed, has jurisdiction to redress the grievance of the petitioner. Per learned counsel since Oil and Gas Development Company Limited [OGDCL] is governed by the statutory rules, therefore, the petitioner can rightly avail the remedy by way of invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this court under Article 199 of the Constitutional of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973.
16. Mr. Muhammad Saulat Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, next argued that the exact DoB of the petitioner is 11-6-1956 and not 6-6-1953. Reference in this regard was made to the fresh 'Secondary School Certificate' issued to the petitioner in the year, 2012 [i.e, on 6-6-2012]. Per learned counsel, the regret/refusal regarding correction of the petitioner's DoB as on 11-6-1956 instead of 6- 6-1953 under impugned Official Memorandum [Annexure 'A' to the memo. of petition] issued by respondents Nos.1 and 2 is illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
17. Mr. Muhammad Saulat Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that, of course, the petitioner joined the service of respondent No,1 [OGDLC] in the year, 1985, but prior such induction, petitioner could not succeed in correcting of his DoB though efforts having been made since, 1982.
18. Conversely, Mr. Javed Iqbal, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 argued that the Constitutional Petition so framed and filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in law. Per learned counsel, proper alternate remedy is available to the petitioner by way of filing a civil suit. Mr. Syed Javed Iqbal, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 further argued that the correction of petitioner's DoB from 6-6-1953 to 11-6-1956 by the 'defunct E.D.O. Education, Jacobabad is illegal and without any authority.
19. Mr. Syed Javed Iqbal, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 forcefully contended that the documents [which show the DoB of the petitioner as 11-6-1956] having been obtained/prepared/manipulated in the year, 2012 are bogus documents and merit no consideration. The serious controversial questions of facts involved in the case in hand per learned counsel, even otherwise, require recording of evidence and such exercise cannot be undertaken under the Constitutional jurisdiction of this court. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 finally argued that the petitioner's request for correction in his DoB has rightly been rejected, of- course, after proper appreciation of petitioner's record available with the respondent No,1[OGDCL].
20. Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh learned D.A.-G. also seriously opposed the maintainability of the instant petition. Per learned D.A.-G. the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands.
The instant petition filed at the verge of retirement is afterthoughts and seemingly is a calculated attempt to prolong his tenure of service for enjoying perks' and privileges at the cost of others.
While, supporting the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2, the learned D.A.-G. strenuously argued that the petition as framed and filed besides misconceived is incompetent in law. Even otherwise, per learned D.A.-G. the instant petition, upon retirement of the petitioner on 5-6-2013, has become infructuous thus liable to be dismissed with cost.
21. In rebuttal, Mr. Muhammad Saulat Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his arguments already advanced by him at bar.
22. Heard and record available before us perused.
23. As far as the question of availability of forum regarding redressal of the grievance of OGDCL's employees through filing of Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is concerned, the same question has already been dealt with and answered suitably by honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of SYED TAHIR ABBAS SHAH V. OGDCL THROUGH M.D. HEAD OFFICE, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER [2011 SCMR 1912]. The extract relevant there-from reads as follows:---
24. "Now in respect of the case of the employees of the OGDC vis-a-vis availability of forum to them for redressal of their grievance, this court in the case of M.D., 0. G.D. C.L. and another v.
Saleem Ataf and others (C. P. No,22405 of 2010 etc.) has observed that as they are governed by the statutory rules, therefore, for redressal of their grievances remedy of filing of Constitutional Petition before the High Court is available to them and Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction.
Following para from the said judgment for the sake of convenience is reproduced, hereinbelow:--- "Thus according to the law, as it stands, the remedy of the employees of 0. G.D. C.L. for the redressal of their grievances is by filing of Constitutional. Petitions before the High Court. The Service Tribunal had, therefore, no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals filed by them, Consequently, Civil Petitions Nos.2405, 2409 and 2410 of 2010 are converted into appeals and allowed. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside on the ground that the appeals before it were not maintainable. The said appeals therefore stand dismissed. The respondents are at liberty to take recourse to the remedy available to them under the law. Accordingly, Civil Petitions Nos. 2617 and 2618 of 2010 are dismissed."
' Learned counsel for the respondents, however, stated that in the case of C.P.L.A. No, 2422 of 2010 (Ahmad Hussain v. The Oil and Gas Development Company, Islamabad, etc.) this Court has held that remedy of the employees of the OGDCL is before the Service Tribunal. This judgment was announced on 25-7-2011 and unfortunately proper assistance was not provided as the cases of Muhammad Idrees (supra), Muhammad Mubeen-us Salam (supra), Pakistan International Airlines (supra), Allama Iqbal Open University (supra) and the M.D.
0. G.D. C.L, (supra) were not cited. Besides it learned Bench seized of the matter has not determined the jurisdiction and on setting aside the adverse order challenged before it passed by the Service Tribunal, has remanded the case to the same forum. The settled principles of law and the ratio decidendi in the case of OGDCL and others ibid, shall prevail coupled with the observation made in the instant judgment which is also based on the earlier decided cases noted hereinbefore, therefore argument so raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is not sustainable".
24. The petitioner in his capacity, as employee of OGDCL which is governed by the statutory rules has rightly chosen the forum of High Court instead of Service Tribunal by way of filing Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan vis-a-vis his grievance. As held in the case of M.D. OGDCL and another v. Saleem Altaf and others ibid the Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction regarding grievance of the employees of OGDCL.
25. Nonetheless, in the case in hand, maintainability of the instant petition has been challenged on the ground that the dispute involved and pertaining to the change of DoB of the petitioner [from 6- 6-1953 to 11-6-1956] is a serious controversial question of fact and as such per respondent's stand taken, cannot be suitably adjudicated upon by High Court under the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction lest without recording of evidence of parties.
26. The Constitutional jurisdiction, it is worth to note, is primarily meant to provide expeditious and efficacious remedy where illegality, impropriety and flagrant violation of law regarding impugned action of the authority is apparent on the face of record and can be established without any comprehensive inquiry into complicated, ticklish, controversial and disputed facts. Controversial questions of fact could not be decided in the exercise of powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The disputed and controversial questions of fact can only be determined by competent forums after recording of evidence. Constitutional Petition in such like situation would not be competent, however, subject to certain exceptions.
27. Regarding petitioner's stand and objections raised by respondents regarding non maintainability of the Constitutional petition vis-a-vis controversial questions of disputes relating to correctness or otherwise of DoB of the petitioner, we may refer to the case of "KHALIL AHMAD SIDDIQUI V. PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY INTERIOR, INTERIOR DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 5 OTHERS" [2003 PLC (C.S.) 696], wherein in identical situation it was held as under:--- "A perusal of the record would reveal that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 19-12- 1941 in the Secondary School Certificate as well as the service record. It may be true that the petitioner moved an application for the correction of his service record in the year 1966 before his High-Ups but it is equally true that the said application was not pursued to its logical end. It is also true that another application was moved in this behalf in the year 1982 but again it was left the halfway and never pursued whole heartedly to the desired culmination. Why did the petitioner sit and sleep over it for decades and decades together has not been plausibly explained anywhere either in the writ petition or in rejoinder or during the course of arguments addressed at the bar.
Why did the petitioner make no effort to get corrected the very basic document of Secondary School Certificate from the Board concerned is another circumstance which violently militates against the genuineness of the stand adopted by him as to the date of birth. If at all the petitioner was in know of some document showing is actual date of birth lying somewhere in Bijnoor, he could well have gone to India to fetch it in mid or late sixties. Why did he postpone his purposeful visit to India till 1998 and why did he not use the good offices of his relatives to have the same is yet another question whose answer cannot be found either from the record or the counsel representing the petitioner. It, is a matter of fact, has become a common phenomenon and usual practice that the Government Servants if and when they come at the verge of their retirement, they question their dates of birth just to prolong their tenure and enjoy the perks and privileges of their service for a few more years at the cost of others. This idea never creeps across their mind earlier and in case it does, it is never taken seriously and pursued to the desired end. It is clearly and sequarely a case of estoppel of conduct which will certainly bar and barricade the petitioner from seeking the correction asked for at least at such a belated stage".
"We, in the above factual background of the case, do not feel it necessary to further dilate upon the question of applicability of rule 12-A ibid, or the claim of petitioner on the ratio of above referred judgments. The petitioner without producing any proof in support of his claim, sought correction of his date of birth only on the basis of oral assertion that his date of birth given in the Secondary School Certificate was not correct. We are afraid, the controversial question of fact cannot be adjudicated by the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. The matter relating to the correctness or otherwise of the date of birth in the service record being purely question of fact, cannot be determined without recording of evidence and detailed scrutiny of facts and such exercise cannot be undertaken in writ jurisdiction". [Underlining is ours]"
28. Before we proceed further, it would be worthwhile to refer to Rule 12A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 which runs as under:--- [12A. Alteration in the date of birth. ---The date of birth once recorded at the time of joining government service shall be final and thereafter no alteration in the date of birth of a civil servants shall be permissible].
29. From perusal of the above, it is manifestly clear that the aforementioned rule pertains to Civil Servants. Further the above quoted rule reveals that DoB once recorded at the time of joining of 'Government service' shall be final and thereafter no alteration in the date of birth [DoB] shall be permissible. This provision was inserted by S.R.O. 521(I) on 31st July, 2000. Before 31st July, 2000 an alteration in the DoB is permissible but not thereafter. The idea of change/alteration in DoB seemingly is an off shoot of an after-thought. It is common practice/ matter of common knowledge that civil suits are filed by employees at the verge of retirement just for prolonging tenure and enjoying of perks and privileges.
The petitioner in the instant case has placed reliance on order dated 3-11-2011 bearing No,EDO (Edu)/Admn-II/-329/2011 passed by the 'defunct' E.D.O Jacobabad. Being relevant, it would be appropriate to reproduce the same herein as follows:--- OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER EDUCATION JACOBABAD No,EDO(Edu)/Admn-H/- 329/2011 Jacobabad Dated 3-11-2011 READ
1. Application.
2. School Leaving Certificate Primary/Secondary Section.
3. Change of Birth Advertisement Local Newspapers.
4. Birth Certificate.
5. Affidavit.
6. Photo Copy of G.R
' After scrutiny of documents/record/particulars produced by the applicant namely Shahid Ahmed son of Sharif-u-Zaman Pathan resident of Sarafa Bazzar Jacobabad regarding correction in date of birth, The Executive District officer Education Jacobabad is hereby allowed to correction in the School record of Primary/Secondary as well as Board as under;--- INCORRECT DATE OF BIRTHCORRECT DATE OF BIRTH 6-6-1953 11-6-1056 Sd/- ' EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER EDUCATION JACOBABAD ' Copy FCWs to:
1. The District Officer Education Sec/H.Sec:/Elementary Jacobabad.
2. The Controller BISE Hyderabad.
3. The Head Master GHS Latifabad Hyderabad.
4. The ADOE(Male) Jacobabad
5. The Head Master GHS (N) Hamidia Jacobabad.
6. Copy to Head Master Hamidia Primary School Jacobabad
7. Copy to concern.
8. Office copy. [Underlining is ours' (sic)]
31. Bare perusal of the above order would show that it is E.D.O. Education Jacobabad who through the above order allowed himself to effect correction in the School record of the primary/secondary as well as record of the Board. Such act on the part of the 'defunct E.D.O. Education' Jacobabad ex- facie is illegal, un authorized and unlawful. Manipulating/procuring documents regarding un- authorized change in DoB depicts that the petitioner's conduct is not above the board as such ex- facie, the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands. On account of such conduct, the petitioner is not entitled to get equitable relief by invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this court.
32. The instant petition filed at this belated stage i.e, in the year 2013 regarding correction in the DoB of the petitioner is also hit by the 'doctrine of laches' as the petitioner is seeking correction in his DoB from 6-6-1953 to 11-6-1956 which is a matter of decades' old. On this aspect of the matter, we would like, to refer to the case of STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH GOVERNOR AND ANOTHER V.
IMTIAZ ALI KHAN AND OTHERS [REPORTED IN 2012 SCMR 280], wherein it was observed as under:-- "Lathes is a doctrine where under a party which may have a right, which was otherwise enforceable, loses such right to the extent of its enforcement if it is found by the Court of a law that its case is hit by the doctrine of laches/limitation. Right remains with the party but it cannot enforce it. The limitation is examined by the Limitation Act or by special laws which have inbuilt provisions for seeking relief against any grievance within the time specified under the law and if party aggrieved do not approach the appropriate forum within the stipulated period/time, the grievance though remains but it cannot be redressed because if on one hand there was a right with a party which he could have enforced against the other but because of principle of limitation/lathes, same right then vests/accrues in favour of the opposite party".
"It is settled principle of our jurisprudence as well that delay defeats equity and that equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent. In the case of Jawad Mir Muhammadi v. Haroon Mirza (PLD 2007 SC 472), a full Bench of this Court has held that laches per se is not a bar to the Constitutional jurisdiction and question of delay in filing would have to be examined with reference to the facts of each case; question of delay/laches in filing Constitutional petition has to be given serious consideration and unless a satisfactory and plausible explanation is forthcoming for delay in filing Constitutional petition, the same cannot be overlooked or ignored subject to facts and circumstances of each case".
"In this very case reference has also been made to words of Lord Camden L.C. from the judgment of Smith v. Clay (1767) 3 Bro. C.C. 639n at 640n wherein it has been observed that "a Court of equity has always refused its aid to stale demands, where a party has slept upon his right and acquiesced for a great length of time; nothing can call forth this Court into activity, but conscience, good faith, and reasonable diligence,' where these are wanting the Court is passive, and does nothing". Cited judgment also refers to a book titled Snell's Equity by John Meghee 13th Edition, wherein at page 35 it has been observed that "the doctrine of laches in Courts of equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine; where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted in either of these lapse of time and delay are most material".
"In Member (S&R)/Chief Settlement Commissioner v. Ashfaque Ali (PLD 2003 SC 132), this Court has held that "writ jurisdiction is undoubtedly discretionary and extraordinary in which may not be invoked by a party who demonstrates a style of slackness and laxity on his part.... law is well- settled that a party guilty of gross negligence and laches is not entitled to the equitable relief. "
[Underlining is ours7
33. Regarding alteration in DoB of the employees [staff and officers] of respondent No,1 Company [OGDCL], the two Circulars No,AAO 103-15 dated 16-10-2001 and No,AA0103-15 dated 29-3-2006 being very much relevant are reproduced as under:--- 'OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED REGULATIONS SECTION, HEAD OFFICE, ISLAMABAD No,AA0103-15 October 16, 2001 Subject: Alteration in the Date of Birth
1. There has been some confusion regarding re-determination of the date of birth of the employees (staff/officers) of the Company. It has already been circulated vide OGDCL letter No,AA0103-15 dated 6 March, 1989 that the date of birth declared at the time of entry into service shall be treated as final and no amendment will be allowed in it at any stage. Therefore, it is once again clarified that the date of birth once recorded at the time of joining the service of the Company shall be final and there-after no alteration in the date of birth of the employees of the Company shall be permissible unless so finally determined otherwise by the Courts of Law.
2. All concerned are, therefore, requested to follow the instructions strictly.
3. This is being issued with the approval of the Managing Director.
Sd/- (Muhammad Tufail)
Chief Personnel Officer (Regs)
'Distribution: As per list 'A' Underlining is ours"1 OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED COMPLIANCE SECTION, No . AA0103-1529th March 2006 Subject: ALTERATION IN THE DATE OF BIRTH
1. There has been some confusion regarding re-determination of the date of birth of the employees (staff/officers) of the Company. It has already been circulated vide OGDCL letter No,AA0103-15 dated 6 March 1989 and October 16, 2001 that the date of birth declared at the time of entry into service shall be treated as final and no subsequent amendment will be allowed at any stage.
Therefore, it is once again clarified that the date of birth once recorded at the time of joining the service of the Company shall be final and thereafter no alteration in the date of birth of the employees of the Company shall be permissible unless it is so determined by the Courts of Law and it has reached finality.
2. All concerned are, therefore, requested to follow the instructions strictly.
' This is being issued with the approval of the Managing Director.
Sd/- (Muhammad Saleem Khan) Manager I/C (Legal/Compl)
Ext. 3578 'Distribution: As per list 'A' [Underlining is ours']
34. From bare perusal of the above circulars it is quite evident that date of birth [DoB] of employees [staff and officers] of the respondent No,1 Company [OGDCL] as being declared at the time of induction into service of OGDCL shall be treated as 'final' and no alteration will be allowed in it 'at any stage' in terms of the aforesaid circulars. It is worth to note that such restriction/prohibition placed on and regarding alteration in the date of birth [DoB] of employees of OGDCL is effective since 6th March, 1989 [i.e, past 28 years]. Significantly the circulars/ notifications have not been challenged by the petitioner in the instant Petition.
35. At this juncture, we would also like to reproduce herein the Office Memorandum No,AP0306- 302/E#101564 dated February 7, 2013 impugned herein [i.e, annexure 'A' to the petition] as follows:-- - NO.AP0306-302/E#101564 OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT HEAD OFFICE, ISLAMABAD February 7, 2013.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM.
Subject:- CORRECTION OF DATE OF BIRTH.
' With reference to his application dated 7-10-2012, Mr. Shahid Ahmed Pathan (E#101564), Manager (Mech.) P &P/Field Manager Kunner LPG Plant is informed that case regarding correction of his date of birth as 11-6-1956 instead of 6-6-1953 as per his matric certificate and other documents provided by him at the time of his induction in OGDCL, has once again been considered but the same is not tenable under the rules, hence regretted.
' This issues with the approval of Manager (HR/C&B).
Sd/- (Ghulam Saqlain)
Sr. HR Officer(F) Ext.2604 ' Mr. Shahid Ahmed Pathan (E#101564), Manager (Mech.) P&P/ Field Manager Kunner LPG Plant.
Copy to: -
1. P.S. to GM (HR Ops/OD), Iba.
2. Master file.
3. Office copy.
36. The above Office Memorandum if seen and read in conjoin with two Circulars No,AA0103-15 dated 16-10-2001 and No,AA0l dated 29-3-2006 one can easily reach the conclusion that the and Office Memorandum has been validly issued.
37. From perusal and upon reading of the Office Memorandum dated February 7, 2013 in juxtaposition of two circulars of respondent No,1 Company [reproduced hereinabove] it is abundantly clear that the above Office Memorandum besides, validly issued is lawful and binding.
In view of this position petitioner is not entitled to seek any correction in his DoB on the basis of 'Fresh Matriculation Certificate' issued to him in the year, 2012 under the directions of 'defunct E.D.O Education' Jacobabad who on the face of record was never authorized by any competent authority to order such changes in the DoB of the petitioner. Moreover, the instant petition besides incompetent in law, devoid of merits, is suffering from lathes. So also upon retirement of the petitioner on 5-6-2013 the Petition seems infructuous as well.
38. In view of the foregoing discussion, and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at bar, we are of the considered opinion that instant petition besides, misconceived on the pleas agitated by the petitioner is incompetent in law as well thus dismissed along with all listed applications, however, with no order as to costs.
39. These are the detailed reasons for our short order dated 21-8-2013, whereby the above petition was dismissed at Katcha Peshi stage.
' The petition stands dismissed.