' NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).---By way of this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the Notification dated 20-3-1994 issued by the Establishment Division, whereby it was notified that on attaining the age of superannuation, the appellant a BS-20 Officer of the Secretariat Group, serving with the Government of the Balochistan, Quetta retired from Government service with effect from 1st March, 1994.
2. Brief facts, as stated, are that the appellant passed Matriculation Examination from Government Pilot Secondary School, Larkana in the year 1953. After graduation, he joined the local Government Department of Province, of West Pakistan in 1960-61 as Assistant Director. On qualifying lateral entry examination, he was appointed as Deputy Secretary in All Pakistan Unified Grade. He held different posts in B-19 and then he was promoted to the cadre of Joint Secretary (B-20) in 1986. According to appellant, some Gradation Lists of APUG were published by the Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan. In some lists, the appellant's date of birth was shown as 1-3-1944 and in some lists as 1-3-1934. The appellant apprehended that the Federal Government may not reckon his date of birth as 1-3-1944, he requested the then Secretary, Establishment Division (Mr. A.K. Lodhi) to settle his date of birth. The Secretary, Establishment Division advised him to produce Matriculation Certificate. He accordingly approached the Headmaster, Government Pilot Secondary School, Larkana, who issued him a School Leaving Certificate on 9-1-1994. This certificate mentions his date of birth as 1-3-1939. The appellant produced this Certificate to the Secretary, Establishment Division, who verbally agreed to the stand taken by the appellant, but further advised him to obtain Matric Certificate from University of Sindh. Meanwhile, the appellant was retired from service vide Notification dated 20-3-1994, conveyed to the appellant on 26-3- 1994. Being aggrieved, the appellant made an appeal to the Prime Minister on 7-4-1994 that the order of his retirement may be withdrawn by reckoning his date of birth as 1-3-1939 instead of 1-3- 1934 and on expiry of 90 days statutory waiting period, he filed this appeal before the Service Tribunal, on 1-8-1994.
3. The case was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant at length. His contention is that the appellant's actual date of birth is 1-3-1939 and in support he submitted a Matriculation Certificate of University of Sindh issued on 11-5-1994. Therefore, the date of birth of the appellant may be taken as 1-3-1939 and the appellant may be declared continues to be in service as an Officer of APUG in B-20 till the age of superannuation i.e, 28-2-1999. It is further contended that the appellant joined Government service initially in 1960-61. According to rules no one can be appointed initially in Government service if his age is more than 25 years. If the appellant's date of birth is.Taken as 1934, he could not have been taken in service being over-age. Further, the appellant passed Matriculation Examination in 1953 and if his date of birth is counted from 1934 then in 1953 he was 19/20 years old which could not appeal to the reason because the appellant, who belongs to educated family, must have joined the school at the age of 4/5 years.
4. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. H. Javed Aziz Sandhu, has resisted the appeal and submitted that according to departmental record and history card, signed by the appellant himself, his date of birth is 1-3-1934. His departmental appeal and appeal before this Tribunal, are hopelessly time- barred. He had never challenged any document or seniority list in which his date of birth was allegedly shown wrong. It was an afterthought when the appellant started making appeals at the verge and after retirement. Therefore, at this belated stage his request for change in date of birth is not maintainable. Further, his appeal is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e, Sindh University whose documents are being relied upon by the appellant and the Finance Division who are concerned with the policy regarding change in date of birth/retirement. Under GFR-116, only Matric Certificate issued by appropriate Board/University is accepted as evidence for the date of birth.
Even in the certificate dated 16-4-1994 produced by the appellant, the name was mentioned `Saidullah' and not `Saadullah' and this Certificate has different text and implications than its copy endorsed to the Establishment Division by the University of Sindh. Further, this certificate has been cancelled by the University of Sindh vide their letter dated 24-4-1994 addressed to the Secretary,.
Establishment Division, wherein it is confirmed that his date of birth according to record is First March, 1934. He also placed on record a copy of summary for the Prime Minister dated 29-6-1994 alongwith U.O. Dated 29-8-1994, whereby the request of the appellant for alteration of his date of birth has been rejected by the Prime Minister. Therefore, the appeal before the Honourable Tribunal is not legally maintainable and may be dismissed with costs.
5. We have heard both the parties at length and gone through the record and certificates produced before us. The Matric Certificate obtained by the appellant from University of Sindh on. 11- 5-1994 and placed on file, does not bear the signatures of the Registrar. Under FGR-116, the only Matric Certificate issued by appropriate Board/University, is accepted as valid document for the date of birth. The appellant was repeatedly advised by the Establishment Secretary to produce Matric Certificate, which the appellant failed to do so. The appellant has stated in para. 18 of his memo. Of appeal that during the pendency of appeal before the Prime Minister, the appellant on 11-5-1994, made available to the Establishment Secretary two certificates issued by the University.
We found that these two certificates were issued by the University of Sindh on 11-5-1994. How it is possible that the appellant submitted these certificates to the Establishment Secretary on the same date on which those were issued from Hyderabad (Sindh University). Further, the Matric Certificate dated 11-5-1994 could not be treated authentic because it does not bear the signatures of the Registrar. We found from the History Card, Application form and other documents placed by the respondents on file, the date of birth of the appellant is mentioned as 1-3-1934. The appellant has also signed those documents, which proves that the appellant accepted his date of birth as 1- 3-1934. The appellant was not an illiterate person and he himself admitted that he belongs to an educated family and he is a Graduate, and also held higher posts e.g. In B-19 and B-20, as such it cannot be believed that he was ignorant while entering his date of birth in those documents which he had himself signed. Further, he did not produce any document to show that he approached the Department for correction of his date of birth during his service, nor he produced any gradation list in which according to him, his date of birth was mentioned as 1-3-1944. With regard to alteration in the date of birth, the Government of Pakistan, has issued instructions vide Ministry of Finance (Regulation Wing) O.M. No, 5(5)R.2/90, dated 21st November, 1990, relevant para. 3 of which is reproduced below:- "At the time of joining service a Government servant is required to sign certain documents i.e, service book, age and health certificate and the date, month and year of birth is mentioned by him there. If he keeps silent over it for years and towards the end of his service becomes forward for alteration of his date of birth, with any plea, it would be an afterthought and must be rejected forthwith."
From the above instructions, it was incumbent upon the appellant to have challenged the matter with regard to alteration of his date of birth during his service, but he kept quiet and on the verge of his retirement he requested for change of his date of birth, which cannot be accepted at this belated stage.
6. For the above reasons, we do not find any force in the plea of the appellant and we held that the appellant has rightly retired on the age of superannuation with effect from 1st March, 1994. The appeal is dismissed with no order for costs.
' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---I agree with my brother Mr. Noor Muhammad Magsi, Member but I would like to add a few points. The reliance has been placed on the copy of the Matriculation Certificate issued on 11-5-1994 from the University of Sindh wherein the date of birth of the appellant is recorded as 1-3-1939. This is a corrected certificate issued under the signatures of Controller of Examinations, University of Sindh, Jamshoro. It is supported by another Certificate issued by the Controller of Examinations, University of Sindh, Jamshoro on 16-4-1994 wherein it is stated that according to the certificate issued by the Headmaster, Government Pilot Secondary School, Larkana, Mr. Saidullah (and not Saadullah) passed the Matriculation Examination in the year 1953 and that the original record is not traceable at the moment and certificate will be issued later. The same Controller on inquiry from the Establishment Division certified vide his letter dated 24-4-1994 as under: "University of Sindh Jamshoro, Sindh-Pakistan ' To, ' Mr. Mazhar-ul-Haque Siddiqui, Secretary Establishment, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.
' Sir, ' With reference to our telephonic conversation on 23-4-1994, it is to certify that Mr. Saadullah S/o Muhammad Yousuf Marri has passed the Matriculation Examination of 1953 held in the month of April, 1953 under seat No, 1254. His date of birth according to this office record is First March.
1934.
' This cancels this office certificate No: Ex/Sec/573, dated 16-4-1994 issued on the basis of leaving certificate issued by the Headmaster, Government Pilot Secondary School, Larkana.
(Sd.) CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF SINDH, JAMSHORO."
' Put in these circumstances, Mr. Shah Abdur Rashid was asked that if he has to say anything, he may file counter-affidavit or implead the University of Sindh or the Controller of Examinations as party, but no such application was made.The base for issuing the certificate was all along that entire record was not available, but from the letter reproduced above it is clear and we are constrained to observe that the Controller of Examinations, University of Sindh, should not have made such glaring irregularities or illegalities, and rather we may say it forgery. After the judgment was reserved, the learned counsel for the appellant made an application for summoning some additional documents and prayed that the Tribunal may call for the Headmaster, Government Pilot Secondary School, Larkana, to produce the original register at Islamabad or Karachi. The basis of the appellant was the Certificate of the University of Sindh and it was not necessary to summon the Headmaster of the Pilot Secondary School, Larkana. On the contrary, it was fair on the part of the appellant to have prayed summoning the record of the University which he failed to do, therefore, we cannot entertain such belated applications. My brother Mr. Magsi has dealt with the case on merits. The basis of the appellant is the Matriculation Certificate wherein his date of birth has been recorded as 1-3-1939 and not on the Primary School Certificate for which the appellant had all along been trying to lay hands. From the record, there is strong documentary evidence while filling up the forms in his own hand wherein the date of birth is mentioned as 1-3-1934. I am, therefore, in full agreement with my other Mr. Noor Muhammad Magsi, that no case has been made out by appellant for correction in the date of retirement, and I would also dismiss deal, with no order as to costs.