' The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision, dated 23rd July, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 6, Rawalpindi, directing the reinstatement of the appellant in service without back benefits. The appellant has claimed back benefits in this appeal.
2. The appellant was retired from service on 24th October, 1980 holding that according to the entry in the service record, he had completed the age of superannuation. He produced copy of duplicate matriculation certificate, according to which, his date of birth was 6th December, 1923. The learned lower Court did not rely upon the said copy and dismissed the grievance petition. On appeal this Court vide its judgment, dated 7th March, 1983 remanded the case with the direction that record of the University be summoned to satisfy if the duplicate certificate was genuine or otherwise. After summoning the record the learned lower Court has found that the date of birth is 6th December, 1923 and has thus accepted the grievance petition. The ground given by the learned lower Court for not allowing back benefits is that the respondent relied upon service record duly prepared. This is true that the date of birth was entered in the service record Exh. R-1 according to the school leaving certificate but Matriculation certificate is always the basic evidence of date of birth In school leaving certificate date- of birth is entered according to the information given by the persons who get the student admitted to the school. In old days education was not common. If the father or the guardian who gets the student admitted to a school was not highly educated, he, not being aware of the consequences of wrong entry of date of birth, used to give the information according to his own estimation. So such entries in the school leaving certificate cannot have preference over the Matriculation certificate. While filling in the admission form for sitting in the Matriculation examination the student himself enters his date of birth. By that time he has gained a matured understanding and thus is in a position to enter correct date of his birth. The appellant stated in his statement before the learned lower Court that he came to know in January, 1980 that he would, according to the service record, retire on 24th October, 1980, so he applied for the correction of his date of birth and attached to appeal a copy of Matriculation certificate. This evidence was not rebutted. Since the respondent had got information that according to the Matriculation .Certificate the date of birth was 6th December, 1923, its refusal to correct the record was not justified. The respondent had thus come to know that the date of birth was wrongly given in the service record, so it incurred the liability of paying back wages in the event of the acceptance of the grievance petition. The respondent did not bother to withdraw the retirement order even after the receipt of grievance notice. Since the appellant remained out of service for the wrongful order of the respondent, he is entitled to back benefits.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant is allowed back benefits.