' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioner was initially appointed on 11-2-1953 as Assistant Lineman in the Electricity Department on work-charge basis showing his date of birth as 3-3-1932. Subsequently, after coming into force of WAPDA Act, the petitioner's services alongwith others, were transferred to WAPDA. The petitioner showed the same date of birth at the time of regularisation of his service in WAPDA.
2. While the petitioner was still serving in the WAPDA, on 17-10-1992, the Executive Engineer, Mianwali addressed a letter to him, informing him that his date of birth was shown in the record as 1-1-1939.
The petitioner was, therefore, asked to supply solid and authentic proof in regard to his date of birth. He was also directed to produce record of Union Council or Municipal Committee and also his school leaving certificate.
3. Although, the petitioner appears to have throughout maintained that his date of birth was 3-3- 1932, but he did not retire on 2-34992, after attaining the age of 60 years, but he continued to remain in service. However, his case was examined by the higher authorities and he was made to retire on 1-4-1993. Although, pensionary benefits with effect from 2-3-1932 were allowed to the petitioner, but the salary paid to him for the period between 2-3-1932 and 31-3-1993 was recovered from him.
4. Being aggrieved by such action, the petitioner first approached the Wafaqi Mohtasib on 21-3- 1995 and on rejection of his complaint, he sent his appeal to the departmental authority. The appeal remained unresponded therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal on 21-11-1995, which, has, however, been dismissed by the Tribunal as barred by time.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court has been that, at least, refund of the petitioner's salary for the period he actually performed his duties could not be justified by the Department. We, however, find the said contention to be without merit. The petitioner was well aware that his date of birth was 3-3-1932, yet the petitioner did not inform the concerned Authorities about the same and he continued to be in service after reaching the age of his superannuation. No doubt, it was for the Department concerned to take notice of the date of the petitioner's retirement, but notwithstanding the same, the petitioner also did not act bona fide.
We have also noticed that the petition has been dismissed as barred by limitation. However, application for condonation of delay has been filed by the petitioner. Be that as it may, but without going into this question, the case of the petitioner does not merit consideration even on merits.
' In the result, leave is refused.