1. ' MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal has arisen from the dispute over the date of superannuation of the appellant, Masood Ahmed Khan, the appellant who has since retired from service, joined Police Department as Foot Constable on 18-9-1951. Having migrated to Pakistan from Rampur, India he had submitted a copy of School Leaving Certificate in proof of his birth date.
2. According to the said certificate his birth date was 22-121935. However at the time of his entry in service, the medical officer certified him to be of 19 years of age (i,e, his birth date being 5-9-1932).
3. The appellant's case is that he remained in the dark about the correct position of his birth date as entered in the official record until the Director, Anti-Corruption, Sindh by his letter, dated 17-2-1992 brought to the notice of I.-G.P., Sindh, the anomaly of the above two dates appearing in the appellant's service sheet as the dates of his birth. Since the appellant was serving as Inspector in the said Directorate, he came to know about the Director's above communication addressed to the I.-G.P. Thereupon the appellant made a representation to the I.-G.P. For accepting the date mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate as his birth date. This representation was forwarded to the I.-G.P. Vide the Director's letter, dated 1-3-1992. After taking into consideration the appellant's clarifications about his birth date, the I.-G.P. Declared 5-9-1992, which was mentioned in the appellant's service book, as his correct birth date vide his endorsement dated 19-10-1992.
4. Unsatisfied with the I.-G.P.'s decision, the appellant preferred departmental appeal, dated 21-10- 1992 to the Home Secretary, Government of Sindh. He also filed civil suit vide his plaint, dated 7-11- 1992. His civil suit was however dismissed by judgment, dated 16-3;1993 of the Sixth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South, on the other hand his departmental appeal was also rejected vide Home Secretary's letter, dated 18-8-1993 addressed to the I.-G.P. The said letter was however endorsed to the appellant on 12-10-1993. In the meantime the appellant stood retired from service with effect from 5-9-1992 vide D.I.-G.P., Karachi's Notification, dated 3-11-1992. Aggrieved by the rejection of his departmental appeal by the Home Secretary, the appellant filed the present appeal on 11-11-1993.
5. ' We heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length and with their assistance we also went through the relevant documents available in the case file.
6. ' We are rather concerned by the appellant's prayer seeking the notification of his retirement dated 3-11-1992 to be declared as void and inoperative. If the said notification was taken as the target of his attack, then the present appeal would be premature because it has been filed before compliance of the mandatory requirement of availing the departmental remedy. Even otherwise this appeal is hopelesrsly time-barred. The cause of action accrued to the appellant many years ago but still he remained quiet and decided to agitate for the desired relief when his retirement was just at hand. It is the appellant's own admission that he was appointed as Police Constable on 10-9-1951. In para. 3 of his memo. Of appeal he has stated that because of his height and strong build, the Medical Officer certified him to be of 19 years of age on the date of his medical examination. We need not point out here that medical examination almost follows the appointment. Thus at the time of his appointment it was within his knowledge that the medical officer had fixed his age at 19 years. Again in para. 4 of his memo. Of appeal, the appellant has asserted that although his School Leaving Certificate was available on the record, yet this age recorded by the Medical Officer was also entered in his service book. So according to his own admission he had full knowledge that two dates; one given in the School Leaving Certificate and 'another recorded by the medical officer were entered in his service book as his birth dates. In fact of this situation it was the responsibility of ' the appellant himself to have taken appropriate steps for fixation of correct date as his birth date in his service record. Therefore we cannot believe that he was completely ignorant about entry of double dates as his birth in his service book as has been pleaded by him in para. 5 of his memo of appeal. This plea is obviously inconsistent with the recitals continued in paras 3 to 4 hereinabove. On top of all above, a close look At the so-called School Leaving Certificate would reveal that the said certificate was issued on 14th February 1953.
7. Thus it was not available either to the appellant himself or to the Police authorities at the time of appellant's appointment on 18-9-1951. The only certificate of age at that time was the medical certificate which fixed the age of the appellant as 19 years. In fact this was the correct position obtaining at the time of the appellant's appointment. Had he not been declared as 19 years of age by the medical officer, his very appointment would have been put in jeopardy, with no prospect of its continuation. In this connection we may refer to rule 12.15 of the Police Rules, 1934. It reads as under:-- "(1) Recruits shall not be more than 25 years or less than 18 years at the time of enrolement These physical standards shall not be relaxed without the general or special sanction of the D.I.-G.P.
(2) The greatest care shall be taken to ensure that the age of every police officer is correctly recorded at the time of his enrolment, and appointment. The record then made becomes of the utmost importance when the question arises of an officer's right to pension and is accepted as decisive in absence of full proof both that original entry was wrong and that the date of birth originally given was due to a bona fide mistake." .
8. ' The above rule clearly confirms that the appellant got his appointment on the strength of the medical certificate which fixed his age at 19 years, falling within the prescribed limits of age. On the other hand if the School Leaving Certificate had been produced indicating 22-12-1935 as his birth date, his age would have been a little over 15 years and thus he would have become ineligible for the appointment. As stated in the above rule, the relaxation in age etc. Was possible only with general or special sanction of the D.I.-G.P. Admittedly no such sanction was obtained nor was it produced by the appellant in support of his case. Accordingly we are convinced that medical certificate, fixing the appellant's age to be 19 years was the basis of his appointment. The School Leaving Certificate which comes to have been stealthily introduced in the record after its issuance in February, 1953, was not before the authorities at the time of the appellant's appointment.
9. Consequently the appellant's clarifications with regard to his appointment on the basis of School Leaving Certificate were far from convincing. Since the appellant had full knowledge that both the dates; one mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate and another given in the medical certificate found their way into his service sheet as his birth dates, it was for him to explain why he slept over this matter for over 40 years and did not take any step whatsoever for fixation of his correct birth date. As discussed above, we have already rejected the appellant's plea as unplausible that he was completely in the dark about two dates entered in his Service Book as his birth dates. It is not clear from record as to how and at what stage the School Leaving Certificate which was not before the authorities at the time of the appellant's appointment became the part of record after its issuance two years later, in 1953. The appellant who must have produced the said certificate could throw light in this regard. But instead he seems to have suppressed it with the result that availability of School Leaving Certificate on record has become a shrouded mystery. In any case the appellant had cause of action soon after his appointment but he did not take any step for seeking the desired relief. He rather preferred to keep silent throughout his long service career of.
10. Over 40 years. He woke up from the deep slumber only on the eve of his retirement. While dismissing the appellant's civil suit he had filed for fixation of his age, the Sixth Senior Civil Judge, South, in his judgment, dated 16-3-1993 had inter alia observed: "Moreover, the Police Department have got their 'own rules and according to rules 9.7, the plaintiff was at liberty to apply for correction of date of birth within two years of his appointment/entry in service but he has applied when he has attained the age of 60 years. If according to plaintiff his date of birth was 22-12-1935, then how it is possible to believe that he was appointed at the age of 15 years and 9 months". It is thus clear from this judgment of the Civil Court that the appellant did not succeed even at that forum because he did not act in time to get his birth date fixed. As stated in the said judgment he had to move for correction of his birth date within two years of his appointment. Since he failed to take action within stipulated period, he obviously missed the opportunity. It was too late for him to have agitated for correction of his birth date on the eve of his retirement. The correspondence between the Director, Anti-Corruption and the I.-G.P. On the question of the appellant's birth did not provide the appellant any fresh cause of action. On the question of delay the learned A.A.-G. Relied upon the Supreme Court authority reported as M.R. Khalid v. Chief Secretary, Punjab 1994 SCM R 1633 wherein it was held: "that Government has the power to correct an incorrectly recorded date of birth of a civil servant but the silence of the petitioner over the major portion of his service was such that he did not merit a favourable decision". The above authority is fully' applicable in the instant case.
11. ' Apart from above, we have also considered the point as to which of the two dates was correct. As pointed out above the School Leaving Certificate was issued on 1953 i,e, about two years after the appellant's appointment in 1951. As the birth date mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate was not available at the time of the appellant's appointment, it was on the basis of the medical certificate which indicated the appellant's age to be 19 years, that his appointment came into effect. According to the birth date given in the School Leaving Certificate (i,e, 22-12-1935), the appellant's age was only 15 years, 9 months which manifestly was short of the minimum prescribed age of 18 years by two years and three months. Had he produced the School Leaving Certificate at the time of his appointment he would have certainly been refused the appointment. Again if we were to choose a correct birth date of the appellant from above two dates one given in School Leaving Certificate and another mentioned in the middle certificate, we would definitely prefer the latter date because it tallied with the event of the appellant's appointment for which the prescribed range of age was from 18 years to 25 years. But if the appellant thought that the Medical Officer was misled by his height and rebuts health in his assessment about his age, nothing prevented him from refuting his calculation by any means such as by filing affidavit or statement of his elder relative or neighbour or friend until he was in a position to produce its authentic proof in the shape of birth certificate etc. For obvious reasons he kept mum over the age mentioned in the medical certificate. In fact the said certificate provided the basis for his appointment and precisely for that reason he did not question its correctness. Two years after his appointment and precisely for that reason he did not question its correctness. Two years after his appointment when he attained the prescribed age, he perhaps thought it safe to produce the School Leaving Certificate, showing him much younger than the age certified by the medical officer. It would appear that the Police authorities did not attach much credence to the School Leaving Certificate for two reasons: First that the entries made therein were not authenticated: Second that it did not tally with the prescribed age for the appellant's appointment. We are in complete agreement with the above view of the Police authorities and hold that the appellant's age recorded in medical certificate was correct.
12. ' In view of above discussion, we see no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.