' This appeal is directed against the decision dated 7-12-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No,6, Rawalpindi whereby the grievance petition for her reinstatement was dismissed.
2. The appellant was retired vide order dated 28-7-1980 w,e,f, 30-7-1980 on completing the age of superannuation of 60 years according to the service record. The appellant challenged the said order before the learned lower court. The appellant produced medical certificate P.4 obtained from Medical Superintendent, Jhelum in the lower court according to which her age at time of her retirement was 52 years. In the service records the age at the time of her employment in 1980 was 50 years. The age given in service record is upon medical examination of the Medical Officer, Chakwal and it is thumb-marked by the appellant. At time the appellant joined service and her service book was maintained there was no dispute between the parties but the time of retirement the appellant was interested in showing her age less by few years in order to continue in service for some years. So, in respect of the Medical Officer, Chakwal on the basis of which the age of the appellant was entered in his service book in 1970 as 50 years is, therefore, believable. As mentioned above, it is thumb-marked by the appellant. She admitted that before receiving her thumb- impression it was made understood and explained to her. She, therefore, know that her age was entered in her service record as 50 years in 1970 on the basis of medical report, but did not challenge it. In support of medical certificate P.4 the Doctor who had examined the appellant and none else. The learned lower court has rightly relied upon R-1. The appellant has gone to the extent of saying that she was never medically examined in 1970, whereby the Municipal Committee was interested to prepare bogus certificate about the age. A presumption of correctness is to the acts of public servants discharged during the course of their duties and very strong and convincing evidence is required to rebut the presumption which is lacking in this case. I, therefore, hold that the appellant was rightly retired on basis of R-1. There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed in limine.