' Syed Hamid Hussain, Member.--This appeal is against the order dated 02-01-2016 passed by the learned Member of Commission at Quetta Bench Mr. Muhammad Akbar Sani vide which the petition moved by the petitioner under Section 33 of IRA, 2012 and under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 read with Section 151, CPC was dismissed.
2. Appellant/Petitioner was inducted into service as Driver of respondents (Allied Bank Ltd. Central Office Jinnah Road, Quetta Branch) on 31-05-1989 and now in the year 2012 he came to know that his wrong date of birth is mentioned in the service record of the respondents Bank as 28-09-1953 instead of 28-08-1956 which was according to his school certificate and birth record. This wrong was got corrected by appellant/petitioner by getting CNIC of the alleged correct date of birth which was corrected by the respondents accordingly. However in the year 2014 appellant/petitioner again come to know through the assessment of events taking and considering, date of birth of his brother and relatives that the real date of birth of the petitioner is 28-084960. So he file a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction in the Court of Senior Civil Judge Batagrain, KPK for the correction of his date of birth which was decreed in his favour on 07.06.2014 (copy of the judgment annexed with the main petition as Annexure-A). The pursuant to the above said judgment and decree the date of birth was corrected in the School Certificate, CNIC, Driving License but the respondents i.e Bank authorities refused to comply with the above said impugned judgment and decree. Not only it is but the respondents also issued a Letter No, Ref:HRG/(SFA)/2015/3430, dated 10-09-2015 to the appellant/petitioner wherein his superannuation date was fixed as 05-10-2015. The appellant/petitioner alleged that he has been indiscriminately treated although one Khalil Khan was allowed correction of his date of birth for three times appellant/petitioner also prayed for the correction of his date of birth not only on humanitarian ground and but also claimed as of right accrued to him vide above mentioned judgment and decree dated 07.06.2014. Hence, the petition subject matter of instant appeal with the prayer that the above said letter dated 10-09-2015 be set aside and respondents be directed to correct the date of birth in its record as 28.08.1960 and his date of superannuation be fixed according to his original date of birth i.e 28-08-1960. The appellant/petitioner issued grievance notice to the respondents but all in vain.
3. Petition was vehemently contested by the respondents by filing written reply taking specific objections that the petition is outcome of mala fide design devoid of any grievance notice the petition is barred by time and also controverted the factual position.
4.Learned Member of the Commission seize with the petition vide impugned order dated 02-01- 2016 dismissed the petition of the appellant/petitioner. The appellant/petitioner being aggrieved hence, this appeal.
5.Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner tried to reiterate the contents of the appeal and he fiercely argued that the respondents were legally bound to comply and obey the judgment and decree dated 07-06-2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge Batagram. The attitude of refusal to obey the above said judgment and decree of the respondents amount to contempt of Court. He further argued that the appellant/petitioner have been discreetly victimized because one Khalil Khan having the same very nature of the case has been allowed to correct his date of birth for three time so the petitioner deserve for the same treatment by the respondents, at the end he argued that the impugned order is against the law and facts which deserve for setting aside and after acceptance of this appeal the petition of the appellant/petitioner be accepted and the correct date of birth of the appellant/petitioner be ordered to be corrected in his service record of the respondents by the respondents.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondents promptly opposed the contentions of the counsel for the appellant and he argued that the impugned order is in accordance to the law and facts, the behavior and conduct of the appellant is that of a mischievous person committing fraud and camouflaging his misdeeds by mis-leading the Court that and at the end he prayed for the dismissal of the instant appeal, with heavy fine.
7. Arguments heard record perused.
8. Appellant/Petitioner joined the service of the respondents i.e Bank on 31-05-1989 as per his own contention at para-2 of, his petition wherein he has categorically contended that in year 2012 ne come to know about wrong entry of his date of birth in his service book because that was contrary to his school certificate Batagram (Thore). He got corrected his date of birth in CNIC as 28-08-1956 instead of 28.08.1953 and this was corrected in the Bank record of his service record. Admittedly this relief was sought by the petitioner after 23 years of his joining the service. Moreover, it is highly astonishing and unbelievable that petitioner when did join the respondents Bank then he was not in the knowledge of his real date of birth because at-least he was aged 18 years or more and was major/adult at that time, further this was the appellant who did himself provide his date of birth for the second time that was corrected by the Bank although the Bank was not competent to do so because at the most the petitioner can sought the correction of his date of birth within two years of his joining service in respondent establishment i.e Allied Bank Ltd. My this opinion is fortified from the case law 1991-PLC (CS) 1202. While this is alarming surprise that this is the third time when the appellant/petitioner is again seeking correction of his date of birth with the help of a judgment and decree dated 07-06-2014 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Batagram in the back of the respondents because inevitably from the perusal of the judgment and decree it is very much evident that in the suit subject matter of the above mentioned judgment and decree of the Civil Court the Bank respondents were not arrayed as a party. While undeniably the appellant/petitioner was employed in the respondents establishment i.e Bank and he was seeking relief against the respondents i.e Bank which was the correction of date of birth in his service record of the Bank so the Bank was the necessary party which has not been imp leaded by the petitioner and vividly this was done by the petitioner as a mischievous device and design so that the real facts and circumstances could not come before the Court particularly the earlier correction of date of birth got by the appellant in his service record from the Bank on the basis of school leaving certificate.
So it can very easily be construed that the appellant did not come to the Court with clean hands rather he tried to play mischievously such like veoples do not deserve any equitable relief from the Court. Moreover, the judgment and decree dated 07-06-2014 is not binding for the respondents Bank to comply it because the respondents i. e Bank was not party to that suit although against them relief was claimed and in their absence no effective decree can be passed and admittedly was necessary party and that should have been made a party being necessary party in the suit otherwise the relief granted by Civil Court would not be binding on it. I get support to my this opinion from case law 1997 SCAJK-28, 2003 YLR-1224.
9. The claim of the petitioner is based on mala fide, mischievous and dishonest design, at the cast of polluting the whole system and infringing the valuable rights of the successor employee such like person should not be allowed to play with the sacred judicial system for their nefarious and wicked motives. Learned Member of the Bench have correctly relied on 2014 SCM R 1008, 2011 PLC 191/176. It vividly surfaced from the behavior of the appellant/petitioner above narrated circumstance of the instant case that appellant is in habit of playing filthy with the authorities and Courts according to his whim and will and such like people should be discouraged and would not be allowed to pollute the system. Appellant/petitioner has heavily contended discrimination i.e, one Khalil Khan has got correction of his date of birth for three times, the facts of that case are not before us; any opinion of this Full Bench may prejudice the cause of a person amounting to condemning him unheard. Further an administrative act of any deport is not binding for this Commission. Further any illegality or wrong how much in number is not a justification for the reputation of that. We get support to this our opinion from the case law of Islamabad High Court in Writ Petition No, 325812015 titled P.LA.C. Vs Full Bench, N.LR.0 and Writ Petition No, 406412014 titled Mansoor Khan vs PIAC. Appellant has been failed to specify and point out any unfair labour on the part of respondents extended by respondents toward the appellant, consequent to this the impugned order has been passed by the learned Member of the Commission quite in accordance to law and facts it does not deserve for any interference, resultant that is upheld and the instant appeal is'dismissed no orders to costs. File of instant appeal be consigned to record room and that of Single Bench, Quetta be sent back forthwith along with copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the President, A.B.L. Karachi for information, and for keeping an eye watch over extending unwarranted concessions and generosity to the subordinates by the concerned authorities as mentioned above.
(R.A.)