' The appellant, who was lastly working in the Pakistan Railways as a Loco Driver, U. G. Loco Shed, Rohri, was retired from service with effect from 30th June 1981, as according to the respondent organization, he had attained the age of 60 years on the above date. The appellant challenged the orders of his retirement before the learned Labour Court at Sukkur and in support of his contention that he had not yet attained the age of 60 years, he produced photostat copy of certificate purporting to have been issued by the Medical Officer, Incharge Tehsil Hospital, Khanpur, indicating that the appellant on the date he was examined was about 55 years of age. On the other hand, the Railway administration relied on 3 pieces of evidence in support of their stand that the appellant had attained the age of 60 years on 30th June, 1981. These pieces of evidence are, firstly, the record of the recruitment of the appellant wherein the appellant is stated to have himself given the date of his birth as 1st July, 1921, secondly, the application made by the appellant to the R-ailway administration on 21st Apri1,1980, when he was informed of his intending retirement, requesting for extension of service by 2 years, thereby conceding that his age of retirement calculated by the Railway administration was correct, and lastly, the certificate of the Medical Superintendent of Pakistan Railways, Sukkur, showing that on 29th September 1_280_the age of the appellant was about 59-1/2 years. Relying on these pieces of evidence, the learned Labour Court dismissed by the grievance petition of the appellant. The latter has now come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. It was contended by Mr. Dilawar Hussain, the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was hale and hearty and that the medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer of Khanpur showing the age of the appellant as 55 years on 2nd January, 1980, should be accepted in preference to the other evidence produced by the respondent organization. I regret that I find no force in his contention. The Khanpur Medical Officer has himself, in his certificate, only given the approximate age of the appellant. This estimate by the Medical Officer is based purely on the external examination of the appellant. It is well known that such examination is not a satisfactory method for determining the age of a person and that in such cases, there is always a likelihood of a wide margin of error. It is common knowledge that the ageing process may be hastened or retarded on account of wide range of factors and circumstances such as dietary habits, absence from or repeated attacks of disease, climate conditions etc. According to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Texicology, Twenty-First Edition, the estimation of age from the teeth with X- rays with some amount of certainty by noting the number and position of teeth erupted is only possible up to 1 to 2 years of age and beyond that it is merely guess work. In the same treatise, it is recorded that the progressive increase in height and weight according to age varies so greatly in individuals that it cannot be depended upon in estimating age in medico-legal cases. As regards the minor signs, like hair, on the face, body, pubes and axillas, which are some of the factors upon which the estimate of age of the appellant has been based in the certificate of the Medical Officer, Khanpur. According to Modi, gray hair is sometimes seen among young people and in a few cases, it is a hereditary peculiarity. According to the same authority, the appearance of wrinkles on the face can give no proper estimation of the age of a person as wrinkles have been seen as early as 20 years of age and sometimes wrinkles may not appear until a very late age as it depends more or less on the nutrition of the body.
3. It may further be pointed out that the Medical Officer, who had issued the certificate, was not produced and examined before the learned Labour Court nor it has been established that the certificate was in fact issued by the Medical Officer. There is no seal of the office on the certificate nor has any person been examined to establish the identity of the signature and the handwriting on the certificate. In any case, the contrary evidence in regard to the age of the appellant is so overwhelming and convincing that no reliance can be placed on the estimation of the age of the appellant as given in the certificate. As already pointed out, the first and the most important pieces of evidence produced by the respondent organization is the record of service of the appellant wherein over his own thumb impression the date of birth of the appellant has been shown as 1st July, 1921. According to rules 203 at page 87 of the Railway Personnel Manual, the date declared by a man at the time of appointment should be taken as the date of his birth. As such, under the rules the age given by the appellant himself at the time of recruitment is to be taken as his official age.
The appellant appears to have been well aware of the fact that he was to attain the age of retirement on 30th June, 1981, therefore, on 21st April, 1981, he had requested that he should be granted extension in service for 2 years with effect from 30th June, 1981. The making of this application clears she that to had acquiesce the record age appellant as maintain by the respondent organization. Finally, there is a certificate of the Medical Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, indicating that the age of the appellant as on 20th September, 1980 was 592 years this certificate is at least as good as the certificate purporting to have been issued by the Medical Officer, Khanpur. The other 2 pieces of evidence, however, overwhelmingly tip the balance against the appellant and establish that his official age as on 30th June, 1981 was 60 years.
4. For the reasons discussed by me above. I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.