' Succinctly stated the appellant initially appointed as Accounts Clerk on 07.06.1974, after a long span of service sought for issuance of his retirement notification in the year 2013 while posted as Director Finance in view of his date of birth 01:07.1953. Due to non availability of supporting documents with regard to confifmation of his date of birth he was asked to provide copies of his matriculation certificate and CNIC. But instead of submission of required documents he provided photocopy of his service book for his non gazetted period containing his date of birth as 01.07.1954.
In view of the situation he further changed his stance and alleged that infact his date of birth was 01.07.1954 and due to typographical mistake it was mentioned as 01.07.1953 in his petition for issuance of retirement notification. He also alleged further that the matriculation certificate and CNIC were not available being lost. In the given situation relying on rest of his service record i,e, ACRs, passport, seniority lists and earlier NIC, his date of retirement was notified as 30.06.2013 vide notification dated 15.04.2013 which was based on his earlier stance. The appellant sought departmental remedy before the Chief Secretary, which was reportedly declined vide order dated 18.06.2013, but neither its copy is appended with this service appeal filed on 19.06.2013 nor it is responded by the respondents in their parawise comments. However the appellant is seeking modification of his notified date of retirement i,e, 30.06.2013 into 30.06.2013 by setting aside impugned notification.
2. On the other hand the learned District Attorney submits that appellant did not produce his matriculation certificate and CNIC to ascertain his date of birth. Therefore, the authority on the basis of available documents i,e, ACRs, passport, seniority lists and earlier NIC has issued the retirement notification which is strictly in line with law and facts.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. During the course of proceedings before this Court the appellant was asked to submit his original service book which was produced by him containing date of birth on its face sheet as 01.07.1954. But from bare perusal of the service book over writing on the name of non-gazetted employee was quite evident. When it was enquired in the open Court, the appellant replied that it was due to change of his name. However he failed to satisfy this Court that what was his earlier name and when it was changed. Even if it was changed then why it was corrected by over writing on the service book instead of issuance of fresh one, which remained in his possession during the long span of service from a non-gazette Accounts Clerk to a gazette District Accounts Officer.
Obviously it is all doubtful and highly insufficient to prove the case of the appellant. Similarly the appellant failed to satisfy this Tribunal with regard to alleged loss of matriculation certificate which is always considered an authentic proof of the date of birth. He has no answer to the question that why its duplicate copy is not being issued by the concerned Education Board, if it is infact lost. I have also gone through the documents provided by respondents i,e, copies of security performa of the appellant, copies of face sheet of various ACRs dully filled by the appellant, copy of International Passport and seniority list where his date of birth is duly mentioned as 01.07.1953 and not 01.07.1954.
5. Obviously in the scenario portrayed above appellant has badly failed to prove his case, consequently the appeal is dismissed.