QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J:- Aurangzaib, petitioner, has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,1973, with the following prayer:- "On acceptance of this Writ Petition an appropriate order may please be issued to the respondents to correct the wrong entry of date of birth i.e 01.07.1954 of the petitioner in his service book according to correct date of birth i.e 01.01.1962 mentioned in old NIC and medical certificate issued at the time of appointment and to reinstate him on his service with all back and future benefits."
Having been appointed as Naib Qasid (BPS-1) on 24.09.1986, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2014. The petitioner is aggrieved of his retirement on the basis of his date of birth entered in the service record as 01.07.1954, because, according to the petitioner, his actual date of birth was 01.01.1962, which was correctly mentioned in his National Identity Card (NIC) and Medical Certificate issued at the time of his appointment; and allegedly, provided by him to the appointing authority at the time of his appointment. According to the petitioner, he came to know about wrong entry of date of birth in the service record after rendering 27 years service as Naib Qasid in the Directorate of Health Service FATA Secretariat Warsak Road, Peshawar, whereupon, he moved application on 03,06.2014 to the Director Health FATA Peshawar(respondent No.3) for correction of his date of birth in his service book, who referred the matter on 05.06.2014 to the Director General Health Services KPK, Peshawar (respondent No.4), but to no avail, hence this writ petition, inter-alia, on the grounds that forcible retirement of the petitioner was against his fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution; that the retirement was in violation of principles of natural justice, Government Policy and was also result of misuse of powers; and that after retirement when the petitioner approached A.G Office for pension he was refused pension with objection that his date of birth in service record was incorrect as the same was not in accordance with his date of birth recorded in the At the very outset of arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, in a matter relating to the terms and condition of civil servant who had retired from service, was raised; but, the learned counsel insisted that being no longer in Government service after having been retired and the case primarily relating to the nonpayment of pension owing to objection of the office of Accountant General KPK with regard to difference in the date of birth recorded in the service record and NIC, the writ petition merits adjudication by this Court.
3. In essence, the petitioner is aggrieved of entry of his date of birth in the service record as 01.07.1954 and is seeking its correction as 01.01.1962 on the basis of his date of birth recorded in the NIC and medical certificate. The petitioner joined service as Naib Qasid (BPS-1) under the control of Deputy Director EPI NWFP (KPK) Peshawar vide order dated 24.09.1986, and n his service book/service record at the time of his joining service the date of birth was recorded 01.07.1954.
Despite our eagerness to know on what basis the said date of birth was recorded in the service book /service record of the petitioner at the time of joining service, no answer was forth coming on behalf of the petitioner, except that the medical certificate issued after his medical examination prior to joining of service showed his date of birth as '1962' and that the same date of birth was also recorded in his NIC issued to him on 23.05.1984.
4. Be that as it may, it was, indeed, incumbent upon the petitioner to have brought this difference/anomaly in the date of birth recorded in the service book/service record and NIC as well as medical certificate to the notice of quarter concerned within two years of his joining service, under the relevant rules, instead of embarking on the exercise for correction of his date of birth at the twilight of his service on 03.06.2014 when he was about to retire in the same month on 30.06.2014, after attaining the age of uperannuation, in accordance with his date of birth recorded in his service book/service record; which was, as such, rightly declined under the relevant rules. The petitioner has furnished no reason, let alone plausible reason, for his long slumber till he reached the verge of retirement.
5. Needless to say that the practice of seeking alteration/change at the verge of retirement in order to prolong stay in service for some more years, around six years in this case, and enjoy perks and privileges of the service at the cost of others, has been persistently deprecated by the Apex Court.
6. In 1999 SCM R 861(Government of the Punjab through Secretary Education Department, Lahore Vs. Prof: Mrs. Jamida Malik), while referring to the earlier judgments reported as 1994 SCM R 1633 (M.R.Khalid Vs Chief Secretary Punjab), 1998 SCM R 801 (Haw Naqaz Kiani Vs. The Province of Punjab), 1998 SCMR 602( Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Vs. Subedar Major (Retd.) Abdul Razzaq) and 1998 SCM R 1494 (Syed lqbal Haider Vs. Federation of Pakistan), the Apex Court held "It was held that delay in seeking correction of age has to be explained which, if not explained satisfactorily, is uncondonable thereby constituting a bar of limitation for seeking remedy through Court of law."
In the same judgment, the Apex Court once again reiterated its disapproval of amendment in date of birth by civil servant when nearing superannuation and deprecated the practice and temptation to embark on the course to get the age corrected at the verge of retirement,in very clear terms.
7. Likewise in the judgment reported as PLJ 2013 SC 511 (Appellate Jurisdiction) (Ahmad Khan Dehpal Vs. Government of Baluchistan and others), the findings of the Apex Court were as follows:- "R. 12-A--SRO 521(1) dated 31.07.2000 ---Alteration in date of birth--Alteration before 31st July 2000 could well be made but no thereafter--Date of birth recorded in school certificate as well as service book was same--Validity--Date of birth altered appeared to be an off shoot of an after thought--AS a matter of fact, (it) has become common practice with civil servants to file suit for correction of date of birth when they come to verge of their retirement just to prolong their tenure for enjoying perks and privileges for few more years at cost of others--Petitioner who had joined service would not (know) about his actual date of birth despite passage of more than Two documents (decades)- Especially when at various stages during his studies as well as service he filled many examination forms, other performance(proformas) as well as service book--Leave was refused."
8. In short, we could not be persuaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner to exercise our writ jurisdiction in a matter brought to the fore after more than around 28 years of joining of service.
Additionally, matters involving factual controversies, as is the case before us, cannot be resolved through exercise of writ jurisdiction. As such, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.