JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD NASEEM CHAUDHARI, J.- Mst Nazir Begum petitioner-plaintiff instituted her suit before the trial Court to obtain a declaration to the effect that here correct date of birth was 4- 10-1942 and t hat the same has wrongly been recorded as 18-4-1936 in her Matriculation Certificate. According to her she belonged to an illiterate family of Taunsa Tehsil and acquired her education in Muzaffargarh. She maintained that in the record of the Town Committee, Taunsa her date of birth was mentioned as 4-10-1942 which was operative. She averred that she moved the Chairman Board of Matriculation and Secondary Schools Punjab, Lahore to get corrected her date of birth but she has failed in the matter. It shall not be out of place to express at this stage that Mst.
Nazir Begum petitioner is working as a Women Medical Officer in District D.G.Khan. She was appointed as Women Medical Officer Civil Hospital, Taunsa Sharif, District D.G.Khan vide order dated 11-4-1987 when with the approval of the then Chief Minister Province of the Punjab sanction was accorded to the grant of relaxation in upper age limit to the extent of 17 years about her.
2. The suit was resisted by the respondents-defendants. It is proper to record that the Secretary Health, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and the Director Health, D.G.Khan Division, D.G.Khan are arrayed in the list of the respondents-defendants. In the written statement it was contended that the correct date of birth of the plaintiff-petitioner was 18-4-1936 which was entered in her relevant certificate on the basis of the admission form filled by her. It was contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, that the suit was barred by time and that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary' parties.
3. According to the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed for determination: K.L.R- r n f Issues:
(1) Whether the actual date of birth of the plaintiff is 4-10-1942 and as such the entry in Matriculation Examination Certificate No. 20082 is illegal, ultra vires, void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff? OPP.
(2) Whether the suit is bad due to mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.
(3) Whether the suit is within time? OPP.
(4) Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to tiy and adjudicate the case in hand? OPD.
(5) Relief.
4. The parties produced their evidence, oral as well as documentary. After hearing the parties the trial Court held that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit, that all the necessary parties were included in the list of the defendants, that the suit was barred by time and that the correct date of birth of Mst. Nazir Begum was 18-4-1936. The suit was dismissed. An appeal was preferred which was resisted by the respondents. The Additional District Judge relied on unreported judgment in C.R. No. 800-D/90 titled as ^ Government of the Pubjab through Education Secretary v. Professor Mst. Jameeda Malik decided on 16-12-1990 by my learned brother Mr. Ihsan-ul- Haque Chaudhary, J., in a case of the instant nature who has observed as under: * "In case the prayer pertaining to defendant No. 2 is granted the net result would be that the date of retirement of the petitioner will be automatically postponed/changed from 6-7-1990 to 16-12- 1994. This part of prayer, therefore, directly pertained to the terms and conditions of the plaintiff as civil servant. Now by this time law is absolutely clear on the point that the Court including this Court has no jurisdiction in respect of the terms and conditions of civil servants".
5. The Additional District Judge held that the Civil Court had not jurisdiction inrespect of the suit brought by the petitioner-plaintiff and the 'appeal was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this revision pGCAWjll.
6. I have heard the preliminary arguments addressed by tire learned counsel for the petitioner who relied on the ruling printed as University of the Pubjab, Lahore through Registrar v. Muhammad Aslam Bora, Advocate and another (PLD 1988 Lahore 658) and argued that the civil suit was competent and that the period of limitation shall be computed with effect from the knowledge of the petitioner. He argued that the dispute in hand would not pertain to the terms and conditions of the petitioner and the matter was not to be heard by the Sendee Tribunal Punjab. He maintained that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit and that the matter may be remanded to the Additional District Judge for its disposal on merits. I express my inability' to agree with him. The view expressed and the dictum enunciated by my learned brother Mr. Ihsan-ul-Haque Chaudhry, J. Of the Lahore High Court, Lahore has impressed me and there is no need to express a contrary view thereto. The change of the date of birth of a civil servant is a part of the terms and conditions of his/her sendee. If the suit of the petitioner is decreed her retirement will* automatically be postponed/changed from 18-4-1996 to 4-10-2002. 1h the light of the aforesaid case law the Additional District Judge has expressed the correct view that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction under Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to entertain and decide the suit.
7. I would also like to express my observations about the factual merits at this stage with respect to the effort made by Dr. Nazir Begum Women Medical Officer for the change of her date of birth. Para I6 of the aforesaid ruling, PLD 1988 Lahore 658, relied upon by the learned counsel for the "petitioner has made the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that much weak that she has to be non-suited.
According to the said relevant portion of the said judgment para 1 of Anexure B to rule 7.3 of Punjab Financial Rules Volume-I envisaged that in regard to date of birth a declaration made at the time of or for the purpose of entry into Government sendee shall be deemed to be conclusive unless the Government servant applied for-correction of his age as recorded within two years from the date of his entry into Government service. Further Government has reserved the right to make a correction in' the recorded age of a Government servant at any time against the interest of that Government servant whom it is specified that the age recorded in his sendee book or in the Histoiy of Service of a Gazetted Government Senant is incorrect and has been so recorded with the object that the Government for consideration on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 20-3-1989. He maintained that without the proposed consequential relief of possession the suit could not proceed which was insufficiently valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction. The issues were framed. After fulfiledged hearing the trial Court did not accept the version of the petitioner-plaintiff and dismissed her suit. It was specifically held while disposing of Issues No. 6 and 7 that value of the suit for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction was Rs. Lac and that Mst. Amir Begum was liable to pay the Court fee on the said amount of Rs. 2 lac. Mst. Amir Begum has preferred the appeal. Before admitting the appeal the learned District Judge directed on 20-11-1994 Mst. Amir Begum petitioner to make up the deficiency in Court-fee amounting to Rs. 15,000/- by or before 22-12-1994. He relied on Nazir Ahmad and another v. Muhammad Tahir and another (NLR 1992 Civil 255) in this regard.
2. Feeling aggrieved by. The aforesaid order dated 20-11-T994 passed by the District Judge Mst.
Amir Begum petitioner has filed this revision petition which is at the motion stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner * relied on Amir Ali v. Addl. District Judge,-etc. (NLR 1989 Civil 55) (Bwp) and argued that it is not the matter falling under Section 4 (a) of the Court-Fees Act as the claim of Mst.
Amir Begum is not based on the alleged sale, gift, exchange or mortgage and for that reason she is not liable to pay the Court- fee as directed by the District Judge. It is added that the suit instituted by the petitioner is to obtain a declaratory decree with consequential relief and the Court fee fixed by her according to her on. Discretion is correct. On the contrary the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant is that the suit was finally disposed of by the trial Court which held that the value of the suit for the purpose of Court-fee was Rs. 2 lpc and the petitioner t appellant before the District Judge) has no alternative but to fix the Court- fee at the value of Rs. 2 lac i.e. In the sum of Rs. 15,000/- as directed by the District Judge. In this regard he relied on Nazir Ahmad and another v. Muhammad Tahir and another (NLR 1992 Civil 255) (Lahore).
3. My view is that the matter before this Court is subtle as well as ticklish. The appeal has not been admitted by the District Judge as yet who has passed the order for the payment of Court-fee on the ground that the valuation fixed by the petitioner (appellant) in her plaint has been changed by the trial Court and in view of the relevant finding in the matter the valuation for appeal would be the one fixed by the trial Court. The relevant Issues No.-6 and 7 are yet to be disposed of by the District Judge. In the aforesaid ruling (NLR 1989 Civil 55, the trial Court had passed the order for making up deficiency in Court-fee while the suit was pending and the order was sustained which was set aside in the writ petition. The distinguishing factor in the matter in hand is that the trial Court has held that the liability of the petitioner-plaintiff is to pay the Court-fee on the value of Rs. 2 lac which obviously comes to Rs.
15,000/-. Thus the authority (NLR 1992 Civil 255 (Lahore), relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant shall prevail being late in time as well as directly applicable. Another aspect of the matter is that in case the findings of the trial Court are set aside on Issues No. 6 and 7 by the District Judge the amount spent by Mst. Amir Begum petitioner for purchasing the' Court-fee in t he sum of Rs. 15.000/- can be returned to her in accordance with law. If the assertion raised by the petitioner through her learned counsel is given the weight then it would be nothing but disposal of Issues No. 6 and 7 by this Court in her favour even though the appeal is still pending before the District Court which has even not been admitted as yet.
4. In view of my aforesaid findings, it is held that the impugned order dated 20-11-1994 passed by the District Court is not hit by any of the ingredients mentioned under Section 115 CPC and that no material irregularity has been committed thereof. However, the District Judge shall have to proceed as expressed supra with respect to the disposal of Issues No.'
6 and 7. Consequently this revision petition is dismissed.
5. Mst. Amir, Begum is allowed a period pf thirty days from today to make up the deficiency in Court-fee amounting to Rs. 15,000/- before the District Judge, Khanewal failing which she shall be liable to meet the penalty' mentioned under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 141 CPC.
6. In view of the legal complexity involved in the matter the parties are left to bear their on. Costs.
C.M. 151/C-96 Mst. Amir Begum petitioner in person.
On 14-1-1996 while disposing of Civil Revision No. 20/1995 the petitioner was directed to make up the deficiency of Court-fee amounting to Rs. 15,000/- before the District Judge, Khanewal within a period of 30 days failing which she was made liable to meet the penalty narrated under Order 7 rule 11 read with Section 141 CPC.- She has filed this petitioh seeking extension in time for the purpose of submission of the aforesaid Court-fee on he ground that she became seriously ill and that she could not collect the mount.
Servant may derive some unfair advantage therefrom. Thus it has been made incumbent on a Government servant to ascertain his date of birth and to produce proper proof in support thereof at the time of his first entry into Government sendee and no request for correction/alteration in the recorded date of birth should be entertained at all, if made after two years of date of ently into sendee. As such the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has enormously damaged her case. She joined sendee vide order dated 11-4-1987 while she instituted the suit for declaration on 20-5- 1993 i.e._ more than six years of her ently into service. She cannot approbate and reprobate by taking the contraiy stand. Keeping in view her recorded date of birth as 18-4-1936 she has to retire on 17-4-1996 on the said date shall fall tomorrow. It iff the general trend in the Government servants that at the fag end of their sendee they tiy to get altered/changed the respective date of birth by considering the retirement as a bolt from the blue while this aspect of the matter should not be considered as such. The respectable retirement of a Government servant is a gift from God which should be accepted in good sense and should not be considered as a harsh matter.
8. Another important point which has stolen the eminence against Dr. Nazir Begum petitioner- plaintiff is that at the time of her entry' in service on 11-4-1987 the sanction was accorded to the grant of relaxation in upper age limit to the extent of 17 years in her respect with the approval of the then Chief Minister Pubjab. The said approval has to be granted by the Chief Minister. If her date-, pf birth is changed from 18-4-1936 to 4-10-1942 as desired and required by her it would be nothing but sanction to the grant of relaxation in upper age limit to the extent of further period from 18-4- 1936 to 4-10-1942 which is not the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or even this Constitutional Court before whom the revision' petition has been argued today at the motion stage. This being the position the petitioner has no case. Even if her suit is decreed the Health Depaftment is not bound to execute the same being without jurisdiction in view of the aforesaid reasoning in the matter and thus the mqtter would become simply an exercise in futility.
9. For what has been said above, Dr. Nazir Begum Women Medical v Officer petitioner-plaintiff has no case and I dismiss this revision petition in limine.
K-T.-R- C. C.