M. ILYAS LODHI (MEMBER): --The appellant, Allah Dad, joined WAPDA as E/Mate (Work Charged) on 1-9-1952. Later on, he was appointed Lineman-1I in 1953 and his services were regularised in 1969.
Thereafter, he had got promotions up to the post of Foreman (B-16). In the year 1991, the appellant was asked to furnish the proof of his date of birth recorded in the Service Book. The appellant obtained the date of birth from the Registrar of the concerned department and also got a certificate to this effect from the District Health Officer, Mansehra showing his date of birth as 3-5- 1932. The appellant furnished the certificates of date of birth to the S.D.O., G.S.O., S.D. No.1, Peshawar (Respondent No.3) but when the case was processed by the Chief Engineer G.S.C. (North) WAPDA, Lahore (Respondent No.2), he did not accept the said certificate and consequently, he directed that his (the appellant's) date of birth be considered as 15-7-1926, the date which was originally recorded in his Service Book. Accordingly, the appellant was retired from service with effect from 14-7-1986 vide order dated 19-7-1992. The appellant filed a departmental appeal to the Managing Director, WAPDA, Lahore on 26-7-1992. Having received no reply, he filed this appeal on 25-10-1992.
2. The contention of the appellant is that though there is interpolation in the year "26" yet the same took place on the very first day of recording entries in the Service Book and no attempt was made subsequently to tamper with the record. According to him, the appellant's service record bears out that his date of birth was 15-7-1936 which was belied by the office of the D.H.O, Mansehra and they affirmed that appellant's date of birth was 3-5-1932 and, therefore, the respondents were not justified to remain adamant in believing that the date which was wrongly recorded "as 15-7-1926" in the Service Book was correct. It was further contended that on 26-10-1991, the D.H.O, Mansehra had also attested the appellant's date of birth as 3-5-1932 and thus the date of his superannuation, on attaining the age of 60 years, fell on 2-5-1992. The respondents had acted illegally and unlawfully in retiring the appellant vide order dated 19-7-1992 with retrospective effect. He prayed that the appeal be accepted.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that at the time of appointment, the appellant's recorded date of birth as 15-7-1926 in the Service Book was subsequently interpolated with ulterior motive to continue in service for a longer period. The main emphasis of the learned counsel was that under rules 116 and 117 of the General Financial Rules, an employee can apply for correction of his date of birth within a period of two years from the date of his entry into service and not subsequently. In the instant case the Executive Engineer, G.S.C. S.D. No.1, Peshawar had affirmed that while the appellant was serving there, he managed to alter the date of birth and that too after six years of his first entry in service. He also attempted to belie the certificate produced by the appellant. The learned counsel prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Even a cursory glance shows that the entry against column V of the Service Book relating the date of birth was altered as 15-7-1936 from 15-7-1926. The appellant's submission that his interpolation took place on the very first day is not wholly reliable as the XE.N., G.S.C., S.D. No.1, Peshawar had affirmed that after six years, the appellant had altered the date of birth. The statement of the said X.E.N. Cannot be dishonoured, as the appellant had nowhere alleged mala fide against him. We are, therefore, of the firm view that the date of birth had been manipulated either by the appellant himself or with the collusion of some official in whose custody, the service book was lying. That being the case, the appellant's claim that his superannuation would take place on 14-7-1996 is rejected. However, the Birth Certificate produced by the appellant cannot all together be ignored. If the departmental authorities had doubt about their genuineness then it would be fair and reasonable if a committee should have been constituted to probe into their veracity but no effort to this effect was made. No doubt the appellant's conduct was exceptionable but at the same time the respondents' conduct for allowing the appellant to continue in service till he made an application for encashment in lieu of L.P.R. Does not seem appropriate. Since the appellant continued to be in service under the impugned order dated 19-7-1992 was passed, in our view, therefore, the proper order for his retirement on superannuation should have been on the date on which the final order was passed by the competent authority on 19-7-1992. We have also noticed that the respondents were not justified in retiring the appellant with retrospective effect. The Hon'ble High Court has held in the case of Province of the Punjab v. Khaliq Dad Khan (PLD 1953 Lah. 295) "that it is only the legislature that can give retrospective effect to what it ordain while the Government has no power."
4-A. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed to the extent that order of retirement of the appellant shall take effect from 2-5-1992 (AN) and he shall be entitled to the normal emoluments from the period he served beyond that date i.e.14-7-1986. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
5. No order as to costs.