The petitioner, in this Constitutional petition, has applied for a direction to respondents for correction of his date of birth and also for an order to restrain them from relieving him on the grounds of superannuation.
2. Case of the petitioner is that he joined service of respondents on 23-1-1957 as L.D.C. And passed certain departmental examinations including ministerial service examination 1965. It is claimed that the petitioner's service is spread over a period of 41 years when he reached the post of Director-General Federal Public Service Commission, w.e.f. 7-8-1998. It is alleged that the petitioner was born on 24th of March, 1941 in the State of Nala Garh in Shimla District of Punjab British India and got the primary education, whereafter the parents of the petitioner migrated to Pakistan in 1947. Petitioner claims to have joined Government Primary School Village Gojra Tehsil Daska and had his high schooling in Sialkot. It is alleged that by mistake the date of birth of petitioner was entered as 10-1-1939 and the petitioner in good faith submitted his pension documents on the basis of his alleged incorrect date of birth 10-1-1939.
3. According to the petitioner, he belongs to a family of six brothers and one sister and on that basis his date of birth as 10-1-1939 would not be correct. 1t is maintained that the petitioner obtained a certificate from his original school "Madrassa Islamia State of Nala Garh, District Shimla, India, dated 1-5-1998 and on that basis he applied for correction of his date of birth to the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. It is alleged that the respondents had no objection to the correction of the date of birth in accordance with law but after the alleged correction of date of birth by Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, when the petitioner submitted his application, dated 2-1-1999 to the respondents for the correction of date of birth the same was neither decided nor the respondents were willing to give any relief to the petitioner.
4.In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction against respondents to make necessary correction in the record pertaining to date of birth and not to retire the petitioner on 10-1-1999.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Secondary School Certificate had been corrected by the concerned Board, the respondents were duty bound to make correction in the record. It was added that the respondents granted request for correction of date of birth of another employee in similar circumstances but treated the petitioner with discrimination.
6. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner did not deny that the petitioner would reach the age of superannuation and would retire on 10-1-1999 as per present record and that except the steps mentioned in the petition, the petitioner never agitated the matter pertaining to his date of birth in the past.
7.After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that for the reasons hereafter, this petition is totally misconceived and ill-founded.
8. The present record of service of the petitioner shows his date of birth as 10-1-1939. The petitioner claims to have joined the present service in 1957. From 1957 till the end of 1997, the petitioner did not feel the necessity of getting any correction in respect of date of birth and his continuous record of service depicted his date of birth as 10-1-1939. It is only at a stage when the petitioner was reaching his age of superannuation that the efforts were made to find out ways and means to prolong the duration of service. It has been observed that the civil servants, at the fag end of their service, raise dispute as to their date of birth with an effort to continue the service for an extended period. This practice of raising issue of the correction of date of birth at the fag end of service has never been approved.
9. In Ghulam Haider v. The Director of Education, Lahore Region, Lahore and another 1971 SCM R 325, it was observed that there are statutory rules relating change of date of birth of Government employee contained in Punjab Financial Rules Vo1.I and that if the representation was made after the prescribed period of two years the employee would have no legal right which could be enforced by issuance of a writ.
10. In M.R. Khalid v. Chief Secretary, Punjab and another 1994 SCM R 1633, it was ruled as follows:-- "After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not persuaded that any case for interference with the judgment of the learned Tribunal has been made out. Admittedly, while taking the Competitive Examination the petitioner had himself declared his date of birth to be 2-6-1930.
He remained in service for about 35 years, thereafter. His name together with his declared date of birth appeared in the gradation lists and civil list periodically published by the Provincial Government. He did not object to the incorrect publication of his date of birth till a few years before his retirement. The mere fact that he was able to obtain a decree from the Additional District Judge did not advance his case for the. Government was not a party to the civil suit brought by him.
Though the Government has undoubtedly 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 from the Government. We are, therefore, unable to find any substance .In this petition. It is hereby dismissed."
11. In Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Department of Education, Lahore v. Prof. Mst.
Jamida Malik and another 1991 M LD 824, it was observed that the proceedings for the correction of date of birth through a civil suit would be barred by the provisions of Service Tribunal Act and also Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
12. In the present case, if the facts are reviewed, one finds that the petitioner claims to have himself provided his date of birth as 10-1-1939 at the time of obtaining service and never objected to the same for more than 40 years. It was only at the fag end of his service when an idea came to him for correction of his date of birth so as to avail another period of two years of service. It appears that with this end in view efforts were started, in May, 1998. So much so, the application for correction of the service record is claimed to have been filed on 2-1-1999 i.e. Eight days before the date of retirement. In this view of the conduct of the petitioner, he is not entitled to any indulgence in the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Regarding the plea of petitioner that some other person was allowed to correct his date of birth, it may be observed that the facts and circumstances under which the correction was allowed are not before this Court and, therefore, no opinion can be expressed in regard thereto. The case of the petitioner has to be examined on its own merit and as noted supra, the long inaction on the part of the petitioner disentitles him to seek indnIgence at this stage, when he is going to retire after two days. There is no explanation as to why the idea of correction had not earlier cropped upon in the mind of the petitioner, as the circumstances and facts alleged in the petition had throughout been in his knowledge. If he belonged to the family of seven persons, this was not a new fact and it could have been taken note of 30 years before. The petitioner was not a minor when he applied for service and provided the particulars of his date of birth. Having himself supplied the particulars and opted not to question the correctness thereof for 40 long years, it will be too late in the day for the petitioner to take up contradictory position. Even otherwise, if the civil servants are allowed in this way, to seek correction of their date of birth a week before their retirement and prolong their duration of service, it will open a pandora box which will not be in the public interest.
13. For the reasons above, there is no merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine.