' MUHAMMAD EJAZ SWATI, J.--- The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Line- Man (NPS-3) by the Superintending Engineer GSO Circle Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), Quetta vide office order dated 2nd August, 1980 and he joined his duty on 3rd August, 1980. Thereafter his services were transferred to National Transmission and Dispatch Company (NTDC). The respondent No,5 (Executive Engineer NTDC, Sibi) vide letter dated 24th February 2015 informed the petitioner as under: "You are hereby informed that as per record available in the office your dale of birth is 01-07-1956 and you are near to superannuation age. Therefore you are advised to intimate whether you will avail LPR or Encashment intimate before time."
2. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 2009, a dispute arose regarding the date of birth of the petitioner and as per stance of the Department in his service record date of birth of the petitioner was written as 1st July, 1956 and after cutting, it was written as 21st December, 1961. The official respondents declined correction of date of birth of the petitioner as 21st December, 1961. The petitioner relied upon the following documentary evidence in support of his alleged date of birth:
(1) Photocopy of Extract of School Register.
(2) Photocopy of Secondary School Certificate issued by Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Balochistan, Quetta.
(3) Photocopy of Medical Fitness Certificate.
(4) Photocopy of Seniority list of Line Man.
(5) Photocopy of Service Report.
(6) Local Certificate of petitioner.
(7) Local Certificate of father of petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Department under the WAPDA Rules was duty bound to record the date of birth of the petitioner in his service book on the basis of above documentary evidence including Matriculation Certificate; that the Department is the custodian of service book and after coming to know about cutting, in his service book regarding his date of birth, the burden lies upon the Department to fix the responsibility of the person making such cutting but no probe in this regard has been made; that the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned twice in the seniority list indicating as 21st December, 1961 issued by the Department, therefore, the alteration made in his date of birth by the Department was illegal and unlawful; that the Date of Birth Committee has also failed to act in accordance with law.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the appended record. The petitioner joined the service on 5th August, 1980, wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 1st July, 1956. The photocopy of extract of service report reveals that after cutting the aforesaid date of birth, it was mentioned as 21st December, 1961. The aforesaid question related to correction of his date of birth was raised by the petitioner before the department in the year 2009, which was declined, vide office order dated 29th July, 2009. The said order was not challenged by the petitioner, which has attained finality, however, when the Department issued letter dated 24th February, 2015 informing the petitioner that on the basis of his date of birth i.e, 1st July, 1956, he is to be retired in June, 2016. The petitioner again approached the Department for correction of his date of birth, which was declined by the Department vide letter dated 21st March, 2016, which reads as under: "The case has been examined but the date of birth of Mr. Sain Dad, L.M.-1 has already been determined vide this office order No, CExe /NTD CL/AM (A)A-477/ 10/28/8632-33 dated 29-7-2009 and there exist no provisions in the Pakistan Wapda Employees (Date of Birth) Rules 1994 applicable to NTDCL employees to review cases, it is regretted that the DOB of the official cannot be revised at this stage."
It appears that the petitioner instead of assailing the order dated 29th July, 2009 before the proper forum, raised the same question of his date of birth at the verge of his retirement after 26 years of joining of his service. The petitioner joined service on 3rd August, 1980 and as per Rule 12-A of Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 "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 civil servant shall be permissible."
5. The aforesaid amendment was brought vide notification dated 31st July, 2000 and the WAPDA also adopted the above notification vide order dated 17th January, 2001, which reads as under: "Authority has decided to adopt the above Notification No, SRO-521(1)12000 dated 31-07-2000, issued by Cabinet Secretariat Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad Mutatis Mutandis."
' Sub-Rule (b) (i) of Rule 5 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Date of Birth) Rules, 1994 (DOB), also provides asunder: "Date of birth once declared and recorded at the time of entry in Wapda service cannot be altered except in case of a clerical B error, with approval of the Authority in respect of employees in grade 17 and above to be routed through General Manager (Admn.) Wapda. The cases of employees upto grade 16 will be approved by respective members with cases to be routed through a Scrutiny Committee to be set up under each Member. The Committee will include representative from S&GA."
' Subsection (c) of Section 6 of Rules, 1994 though provides alteration of date of birth related to clerical error but said rule is applicable to those employees who were employed initially as Work C Charge and were later converted as regular employees of WAPDA on or after July 1994.
6. The petitioner in the instant case has claimed alteration of his date of birth on the basis of Matriculation Certificate, CNIC and Local Certificate i.e, confirmatory documents as provided under section 3 of DOB, Rules, 1994, but the said rule is inapplicable in the instant case as the petitioner was appointed prior to 1994. The petitioner on the basis of photocopy of documents described in para No,1 of the petition raised controversial question of fact and sought declaration for rectification/ correction of his date of birth after 26 years of joining service, which matter had already been decided by the competent DOB Committee of the Department vide order dated 29th July, 2009, which has taken finality. The instant petition in this respect also suffers from laches.
Reference in this respect is to be made to the case of Ahmed Khan Dehpal v Government of Balochistan and others 2013 SCM R 759, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under: The idea to have the date of birth altered appears to be an off shoot of an afterthought. It, as a matter of fact, has become a common practice with the civil servants to file a civil suit for correction of date of birth when they come to the verge of their retirement just to prolong their tenure for enjoying the perks and privileges for a few more years at the cost of others.
' How comes this that the petitioner who joined the service in 1982 could not know about his actual date of birth despite the passage of more than two decades. Especially when at various stages during his studies as well as service he filled many examination forms, other pro formal as well as service book."
' In the case of Professor Dr. Muhammad Aslam Baloch v. Government of Balochistan through Secretary, Iroalth Department and others 2014 SCM R 1723, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner falls outside the purview of Rule 11 is also misconceived. The language of Rule 11 of the Rules which deals with the alteration in the date of birth clearly suggests that the date of birth of a Civil Servant once recorded at the time of joining the Government Service shall be final and would not be altered except where a clerical mistake occurs in recording the same in the service record. It further provides that the request of a Civil Servant for change of date of birth shall not be entertained after a period of two years from the date of such entry in his service record. The petitioner joined the service on 6-3-1991 and since then up to the year 2004 has never objected to the entry of his date of birth. The record reveals that the department issued seniority lists at times in which date of birth of the Petitioner was mentioned as 16-11-1951. The material produced and examined by the Tribunal clearly suggests that the petitioner got altered/changed his date of birth when he was at the verge of his retirement in the year 2011. The original date of birth of the appellant, as per material examined by the Tribunal was 16-11-1951 which was got altered by petitioner to 16-11-1954, by fabricated documents. The Rules do not authorize the competent authority to entertain any representation for altering the date of birth of a Civil Servant beyond two years in the service record."
' In view of the above, Constitutional Petition No,111 of 2016 is dismissed.