ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). -Muhammad Sharif, ex---Bearer, Mayo Hospital, Lahore has made this appeal against the order of retirement passed on 11th May, 1981, under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Deputy Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore and the Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore as respondents and has prayed that the impugned order of retirement be set aside and respondent be directed to take the appellant as regular servant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Bearer in the Mayo Hospital, Lahore.
His age was determined by the Medical Superintendent, Services Hospital, Lahore, 52 years on 2nd July, 1973 vide medical certificate No. 4791/ME, dated 4th July, 1973. The appellant accepted this age and did not agitate against this. The appellant applied for L. P. R. On 7th April, 1981. The L. P. R. Was sanctioned accordingly in his favour from 10th May, 1981 to 30th June, 1981 vide office Order No. 16070-71/MH, dated 11th May, 1981. The date of expiry of L. P. R. Was 30th June, 1981 and he stood retired on 30th June, 1981. After the expiry of this date, the appellant moved an application on 30th August, 1981, to the Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore requesting that his age was written more than actual age at the time of his appointment in the Mayo Hospital which was wrong and inadvertent. His age should be taken as given in his identity card which is also confirmed from the Corporation Certificate which is about 49 years. According to this version of the appellant he had not attained the age of superannuation. He prayed for re-instatement in service but his request was not taken into consideration. Hence this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has not attained the age of superannuation according to the certificate of the Municipal Corporation, Lahore submitted by the appellant lately wherein his date of birth has been shown as 8th February, 1932 and thus he has been retired prematurely. He submitted that the appellant be re-instated in service on the basis of this documentary proof regarding his date of birth. The learned counsel for the respondents controverted these arguments by saying that the certificate produced now cannot be relied upon because there is no name of the child shown in the column 8 of the certificate which is blank.
Moreover, the appellant is the permanent resident of Kahna Nau, Ward No. 8, Tehsil and District Lahore, accord--ing to his service book, whereas the address given in the birth certificate so produced by the appellant is `Kucha Mullan Syed, Mozang, Lahore, which is quite different from his actual address. Thus, this certificate given by him is fictitious, bogus and cannot be relied upon.
Furthermore, he was examined by the Medical Superintendent, Services Hospital, Lahore in the year 1973 and his age was assessed as 52 years. He accepted this age, felt contented, never agitated previously this issue of his age. This age is also confirmed by the fact that he himself applied for L.
P. R. On 7th April, 1981 which was duly granted and thus, he stood retired on 30th June, 1981.
Agitating this issue in the month of August, 1981 when he already stood retired, is not worth consideration and is not a valid claim.
4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments put forth by both the counsel of the parties and also have perused the record. We agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the birth certificate of the Municipal Corporation, Lahore, produced by the appel--lant, is an after thought and is not a reliable document because the name of the child born is not mentioned in it. Hence no reliance can be made on this. Furthermore, the fact remains that he himself applied for L. P. R. And his request dated 7th April, 1981 is on record with the Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital. Thus, he himself accepted the age as determined by the Medical Superintendent, Services Hospital, Lahore in the year 1973 earlier and the L. P. R. Was duly sanctioned to him on 11th May. 1981 for the period from 10th May, 1981 to 30th June, 1981. Thus he stood properly retired on 30th June, 1981 on his own request and was relieved of his duties.
5. Keeping the above analysis in view, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.
There will be no order as to costs.