' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J:---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 18-6- 1999 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to the as Tribunal), whereby Appeal NO662 of 1998 tiled by the petitioner for the change in his date of birth was dismissed.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that petitioner joined service as Constable on 19-11-1961, in Sialkot District. He was promoted as Head Constable on 1840-1970 and deputed to erstwhile Province of West Pakistan as Head Constable in 1971. According to petitioner his correct date of birth was 4-10-1941 but while reconstructing the record after his repatriation to ,West Pakistan his date of birth has inadvertently been recorded as 4-10-1939. After coming to know regarding wrong entry of date of birth in the record he submitted an application to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab for correction of his date of birth but the respondent did not accede to his request. Therefore, he instituted service appeal before Punjab Service Tribunal for correction of his date of birth. The respondents contested the appeal and controverted the allegations leveled therein.
3. The Service Tribunal after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 18-6- 1999. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel stated that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 4th October, 1941 while reconstructing his service record it was wrongly mentioned to be as 4th October, 1939. According to him, he was repatriated from East Pakistan in 1974. Therefore, his record was not available as such the documents furnished by -him should have been accepted instead of drawing inference on the basis of the material placed by the concerned Police Office.
5. We have heard the learned counsel and have examined the impugned judgment carefully. It would be appropriate to reproduce herein below relevant pares. From the impugned judgment:-- ' In order to reconstruct his required record, as letter was addressed to the Superintendent of., Police, Sialkot by the office of the Inspector-General of Police. In his reply the Superintendent of Police dispatched a copy of the long roll (Annexure-R/II) which clearly shows that the appellant joined service on 16-11-1961 and his date of birth was 4-10-1939. Besides this there are about twelve confidential reports tin which the face sheet invariably filed in by the official himself. Each of these forms contains the date of birth as 4-10-1939. His age at that time of joining service has been described as 22 years, one month and 12 days. He joined service on 16-11-1961. All these facts go to show and establish that there was any malice on the part of the respondents which could have prompted anyone. To wrongly give his date of birth in order to damage his career. The official acts are supposed to carry a presumption of correctness. He has therefore, not been able to authoritatively demolish the stand of the respondents. The date of birth shown in the long roll sent by the Superintendent of Police, Sialkot shows his date of birth as 4-10-1939 and his age at that time was correctly described as 22 years, 1 month and 12 days.
' There is nothing on record to indicate that his date of birth has been wrongly described. Moreover the entries in about a dozen ACRs, which describe the date of birth as 4-10-1939 cannot be ignored, the-reason being that the face sheet of the ACR form is invariably filed in/written by the officer reported upon. As such his effort to seek correction of date of birth after putting in service for more than a quarter of century is not tenable. It was submitted by the learned DA that the entire service record available with the department shows his date of birth as 4-10-1939 and the mention in the comments as 4-11-1931 is merely a typographical mistake. The record prepared by the S.P., Sialkot, the appellate order and number of other documents on record show that the date of birth in fact is 4-10-1939 and the stray mention in the comments as 4-11-1939 is a clerical slip.
6. It may be seen that if we were to accept the stand of petitioner that record of his service containing the date of birth which he is pointing out i,e, 4-10-1941 was missing because he came from East Pakistan in 1974. But surprisingly he never launched any proceeding for correction of his date of birth. It is for the first time that in the year 1998 it occurred to him to get correct his date of birth in the service record. This move of the petitioner militates against the law laid down by this Court in the case of Iqbal Haider v. Federation of Pakistan (1998 SCM R 1494) wherein it has been held that a Government employee under the relevant rules cannot make prayer for correction of his date of birth after two years of joining service. Therefore, if at all the petitioner has a valid claim he should have instituted proceedings for correction of his date of birth within the period of two years after coming back from East Pakistan and it was not possible then at least he should have agitated for correction of his date of birth-within reasonable time which according to him has been wrongly recorded in the service record. In view of such circumstances we believe that petitioner himself was satisfied with his date of birth i,e, 4-10-1939 because he did not challenge the same at earliest stage. Besides he has full knowledge about such entry in his service record because as per the impugned judgment petitioner's date of birth has been mentioned in ACRs, But despite acquiring knowledge he did not agitate against such entry as such by his own conduct he cannot be allowed to change his stance after a considerable long period.
' Thus for the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave declined. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.