CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---The background, regarding this petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 against the judgment dated 10-12-1997 of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing petitioner's Appeal No,492(R) of 1997, is that he was appointed as peon in the office of Carrier Telephone Industries (Pvt.), Islamabad since March, 1971. His application under Voluntary Separation Scheme, VSS for short, was accepted on 8-4-1997 and he was relieved of his duties with effect from 15-4-1997 vide order dated 8-4-1997. After his retirement, he applied on 3-6-1997 for change of his 'date of birth' from 11-1940 to 17-2-1945 which was rejected by the respondents on 2-7-1997. His Service Appeal was dismissed by the Federal Service Tribunal on 26-111997. Penultimate paragraph of this judgment reads thus:-- "2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the appeal file. In the pro forma/application for Voluntary Separation Scheme Retirement we find date of birth as 1-1- 1940, which was duly signed by the appellant, and he did L,,,..'agitate at that time whereas he knew that his date of birth as indicated in his National Identity Card and on the Employees of the Old Age Benefits Card as 1946. Moreover, the appellant has served about more than 25 years. During whole his service he did not bother/agitate this point and after acceptance of his Voluntary Separation Scheme retirement, now he requested to change the same which is not understandable. He should have challenged this point much before the date of his retirement, which he failed to do so. Under the settled law, now it cannot be changed at this belated stage. The appeal having no merit is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs."
2. We have been taken through the material by Mr. M. Siddique Qureshi, Advocate, who was permitted to argue the matter on behalf of the petitioner. He has argued that the petitioner was not at all responsible for failure to effect appropriate change in the entry, regarding his date of birth in his Service Book. According to him, the entry in the pro forma/application for Voluntary Separation Scheme retirement i,e, 1-1-1940 which represented the entry in the Service Book as well, was a clerical mistake and was also contrary to the year of birth as indicated in his National Identity Card and on the Employees' Old Age Benefit Card i,e, 1946. The manifest wrong having been done him requires correction ex debit justified.
3. We are unable to agree with the line of arguments adopted by the learned counsel appearing in support of this petition. We find that the entries A in the pro forma/application under Voluntary Separation Scheme (page 24 of the paper book) was duly signed by the petitioner and the same is in line with the entries in his Service Book. Learned Members of the Tribunal were quite right in observing that the petitioner " did not bother/agitate this point and after acceptance of his Voluntary Separation Scheme VSS retirement, now he requested to change the same which is not understandable." Moreover, the reliance placed on the 'birth certificate' for the purposes of affecting change in the appropriate documents does not admit of any serious consideration. Copy of this 'Birth Certificate' is available at page 19 of the Paper Book and it reads thus:-- "Certified that according to the affidavit-furnished by Mr. Sher Muhammad son of Feroz Khan resident of Village Sheikhul Bandi Tehsil and District Abbottabad, and attested by Notary Public Abbottabad.
"Mr. Muhammad Sarwar son of Mian Khan resident of Sheikhul Bandi Tehsil and District Abbottabad was born on 17-2-1945. (Seventeenth of February One Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty-Five). "
We find that the affidavit of Mr. Sher Muhammad was made the basis of the 'Birth Certificate' by the District Health Officer on 9-7-1997 i,e, within 3 months of petitioner's retirement under Voluntary Separation Scheme VSS. The failure on the part of the petitioner to even so much as raise his little finger for obtaining the correction of his date of birth in the documents and/or official record in that regard for about a quarter of a century, is too long a period to be ignored. Viewed in this perspective, the efforts made by the petitioner to have his date of birth changed/corrected cannot but be held to be an afterthought and rightly rejected by the respondents as well as the Tribunal.
4. No other point was urged.
5. For all that has gone before, the instant petition is dismissed and leave refused.