FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER).--Raja Muhammad Sadiq, appellant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned order dated 26-5-1984 vide which the appellant was retired from the service on attaining the age of 60 years. The appellant has impleaded the Principal, Comprehensive High School, Dhok Kashmirian, Rawalpindi as respondent.
2. Through this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in service with back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed in the Education Department as Laboratory Attendant on 1-4-1967. He started work in Comprehensive High School, Dhok Kashmirian, Rawalpindi till 18-6-1984. The appellant was issued the impugned order dated 26-5-1984 declaring him (appellant) as retired from service w.e.f. 2-5-1979 on attaining the age of 60 years according to the date of birth supplied by the Army Authority. Accordingly the appellant was relieved from his duties w.e.f. 30-11-1983 and his pay was withheld from the said date. The impugned order further indicated that the over payment from 3-5-1979 to 30-11-1983 to be recovered from the gratuity/ pension of the appellant. The appellant felt aggrieved because according to his contention his date of birth is 10-8,1930 and he is entitled to continue in the service till 1990. The appellant accordingly moved an application before the Director Education on 10-8-1984 and receiving no reply from the Director Education the appellant filed the instant appeal.
4. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the date of birth of the appellant is 10-8-1930. The learned counsel for the appellant added that the impugned order was issued without any justification. The learned counsel for the appellant closed his arguments while stating that the implementation of the impugned order issued with endorsement dated 26- 5-1984 was made w.e.f. 2-5-1979 which was not legal. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following cases concerning the determination of the age: - (i)Tahir-ur-Rehman's v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 171.
(ii)Muhammad Khan v. The State PLD 1978 SC (A J & K) 1- (i.e)Ghulam Dastgir v. S. M. A. Kazmi, Secretary, Government of West Pakistan and another PLD 1970 Lah. 33.
5. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that as mentioned in the impugned order dated 26-5-1984 (copy attached with the appeal) the appellant was previously employed with the Pakistan Army and after the discharge from the Army was re-employed with the Education Department as Laboratory Attendant. Subseqtiently the respondent Department felt that the appellant had tampered the birth dated 31-12-1920 on the Service Book and converted it to 31-12- 1930 to show him younger by 10 years which was done Without attestation of the competent authority. The appellant was directed to produce School leaving certificate and Army discharge certificate but both were bogus. Consequently the Officer Incharge Record, Army Medical Centre, Abbottabad was requested vide No.60 dated 17-31984 for supply of correct date of birth of the appellant as well as his enrolment and discharge from the Army, which was replied vide letter dated 21-3-1984 as follows:- Date of Birth3-5-1919 Date of Enrollment 3-5-1938 Date of discharge 16-5-1958.
The learned District Attorney concluded his arguments while stating that the respondent Department was justified to treat the record of the Army received vide letter dated 21-3-1984 as authentic and admitting the date of birth as 3-5-1919 worked out the date of retirement on the completion of 60 years w.e.f. 2-5-1979.
6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney. We have also consulted the relevant record including the written objections of the respondents. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the instant case because as stated above the appellant was undisputedly an employee of the pairi191n Army. The appellant had subscribed his date of birth as 3-5-1919 which he did not dispute from the date of enrolment on 3-5-1938 to the date of discharge 16-5-1958 that is for full 20 yeas. As such. We also examined the authenticated and original letter dated 21-3-1984 received from the Officer Incharge Record, Army Medical Centre, Abbottabad which supports this fact concerning the age of the appellant. The photo copy of the letter is attached with the written objections of the respondents and it discloses that for the first time the appellant was enrolled on 3-5-1938 in the Pakistan Army which would further support that if the appellant is treated to be born s according to his version on 10-8-1930 for the sake of arguments without conceding then at the time of recruitment on 3-5-1938 he would be only aged 8 years which would clearly show that the appellant's version is baseless. Undisputedly there is a scope for relaxation of the age to a certain level by the competent authority on the upper limit bat there is no scope even for a single day to relax the age to the lower limit of 18 years because a minor person cannot be employed in service of the Government.
7. Hence we are of the considered opinion that there is no force in the appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. We also see no point for the refund of any amount of the appellant because the appellant over stayed for the self-inflicted wrong if it is interpreted in a mild manner, otherwise one can say that it would amount to pay premium to the appellant for attempting forgery and cheating for continuation of his service after attaining the age of 60 years.
Judgment to be communicated to the parties.