' RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal is directed , against the order of retirement of appellant No, 701/90 dated 7-11-1990 made by Tehsildar Athmuqam.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant was appointed initially as Naib-Qasid on 2-2-1962 in the Revenue Department. He continued to perform his duties as such and was retired from service on the completion of sixtieth years of his age. The appellant's claim is that he is an illiterate person and is unable to write or understand Urdu language. His date of birth was falsely recorded as 6-6-1930 in the service record whereas the year of his birth was 1934 and according to his correct year of birth he was to be retired in the year 1994. He was retired from service four years earlier and has thus been deprived of his right to continue the service till he attains the age of sixty years.
3. The respondents failed to appear before the Tribunal despite the service of the notice and, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte on 27-91994.
4. The appellant has produced Dr. Pervaiz Akhtar Rathore, Civil Medical Officer, Neelum Hospital Athmuqam and also appeared as his own witness.
5. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and have very carefully gone through the record .
6. The counsel for appellant has argued that the age entered in the State Subject Certificate Exh.
'PC' is thirty years and the year of birth written in Identity Card Exh. 'D' is 1934. From these documents and statement of Dr. Pervaiz Akhtar Rathore and his own statement the appellant has tried to prove that he was born in the year 1934. This proof in our view is not sufficient because the entry once made in the service record shall be taken as conclusive unless it is rebutted by a strong evidence.
The entries in the Identity Card and State Subject Certificate were made much later. The appellant should have been vigilant about his service record and he should have approached the superior authorities for correction of his date of birth. At this stage he cannot be allowed to take any benefit regarding a matter about which he was himself negligent. Illiteracy or otherwise is no ground. The appellant has stated in his statement that he has been submitting applications for correction of date of his birth but no remedy was provided to him. There is nothing on the record to show that he submitted any application for correction of his date of birth prior to the date of his retirement. We, therefore, repel the claim of the appellant.
7. The impugned order was passed by Tehsildar on 7-11-1990. It was incumbent upon the appellant that he should have sought departmental remedy before knocking at the door of this Tribunal for relief he has claimed in this appeal. The right of appeal to an aggrieved civil servant is available under section 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal Act, 1975 against any final order, whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority, in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service. The right of appeal is, however, subject to proviso (1) to section 4 which is mandatory and which provides that the civil servant has first to prefer an appeal etc to a departmental authority designated as Appellate Authority and has to wait for a period of ninety days and after the expiry of said period he can prefer appeal within thirty days. The appellant has stated in para. 6 of the appeal that he has been making applications for a review of the order to the Department but nobody came to his rescue. The impugned order was passed by Tehsildar Athmuqam. The next higher Authority to Tehsildar is Assistant Commissioner Athmuqam. We have very carefully gone through the record and we have not been able to find any appeal having been filed before the Assistant Commissioner against the impugned order. The appellant has to state this fact in clear and specific terms in his memorandum of appeal that he preferred the appeal against the impugned order and after expiry of the period of ninety days he has come to this Tribunal. He has miserably failed to state the facts as required under the law. We find that he has not filed any appeal before the competent departmental authority and miscellaneous applications for review of the order made to the Department are of no value and cannot satisfy the mandatory provisions of law as laid down under the proviso (1) to section 4 of the Act. An application dated 16- 9-1991 appears to have been made before the Assistant Commissioner which is on the personal file of the appellant, In this application the appellant has stated that his date of birth according to State Subject Certificate and National Identity Card is in the year 1934. His son has been appointed against the post vacated by him. He, therefore, did not want to join his service. He may, however, be given benefits of his remaining service of four years and be retired with effect from 6-11-1990 (copy of this application is attached with the appeal file). The contents of his application reveal that the appellant was not anxious to join remaining service of four years as was claimed by him. This application was submitted almost after a period of about ten months. Even if this application is taken as an appeal it is hopelessly time barred. The appeal is thus incompetent and is liable to be dismissed.
8. The impugned order was passed on 7-11-1990. The appellant has stated in para. 6 of his appeal that he has received pension etc. An aggrieved civil servant can prefer appeal in the Tribunal within thirty days of the communication of the order. The order was passed on 7-11-1990 whereas the present appeal was filed on 2-12-1993 before this Tribunal. In para. 7 of the memorandum of appeal the appellant has stated that he remained sick for a considerable time and, therefore, could not approach this Tribunal and has prayed for extension of time. The counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant could not prefer the appeal on account of his illness which is proved by the statement of Dr. Pervaiz Akhtar Rathore who has stated that the appellant remained under his treatment for three years with effect from 8-11-1990 to 28-11-1993 and he issued certificate Exh. `PB'. The Doctor appears to have covered the period in between the impugned order and filing of the appeal. In his statement this witness has stated that the treatment of the diseases entered in the certificate `Exh. B' if not made in time it may cause paralysis. In his statement the appellant has stated that he was sick and was unable to move and, therefore, he could not come to the Tribunal. In para. 6 of the memorandum of appeal the appellant has stated that he has been making the applications to the Department and he also under compulsion obtained the , pension for his living. This part of memorandum of appeal is clear manifestation of the facts that the appellant was making applications to the Department and was also able to pursue the matter of his pension.
9. In the circumstances it appears that the excuse of illness and the evidence in its support are not acceptable and we are not in favour of condoning delay of almost three years in filing of this appeal. The appeal is also hopelessly time barred and is liable to be dismissed.
10. In the light of the above discussion we dismiss this appeal without making no order as to costs.