Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: HAQ NAWAZ KIANI VS Respondent: PROVINCE OF PUNJAB
1998 P L C (C
1998 P L C (C.S.) 624
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Nasir Aslam Zahid, Munawar Ahmad Mirza and Abdur Rehman Khan, JJ
HAQ NAWAZ KIANI
Versus
THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, and others
Civil Petition No. 1103 of 1997, decided on 2nd March, 1998.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 5-9-1997 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeal No.391 of 1996).
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Art. 49---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)---Change in date of birth- Civil servant at fag-end of his career when retirement-age was just approaching seeking change in his date of birth---Civil servant through District Magistrate got his date of birth changed from relevant birth register and on basis of entries freshly recorded got his Matriculation Certificate rectified with regard to date of birth---Petitioner (civil servant) being Senior Police Officer sought rectification of age in his service record which was refused---Service Tribunal dismissed civil servant's appeal against refusal of rectification of his service record---Validity---Service Rules regarding correction of age within two years from entry into service were apparently sound and logical---Civil servant could not be normally permitted to awake from deep slumber and dramatically announce change in date of birth; when about to retire---Service Tribunal had properly considered all facts and aspects of case and had assigned cogent reasons for declining relief---Legal position discussed and conclusions drawn by Service Tribunal did not suffer from any defect, illegality or impropriety---Development of tendency whereby unwarranted claims, attempting to show error in "date of birth" being asserted towards retiring age by fabricating or manipulating documents in that behalf deprecated---Grievances agitated by civil servant did not make out any substantial question of law having public importance---Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was refused in circumstances.
Raja Muhammad Bashir, Advocate Supreme Court with Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents
Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1998
JUDGMENT
MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, J.---This petition is directed against judgment, dated 5th September, 1997 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.391 of 1996.
2. Relevant facts leading to filing of present petition though brief yet are strange and amazing. Petitioner joined service in Punjab Constabulary during year 1957 and was subsequently absorbed in the Punjab Police towards 1961. With the passage of time he was promoted and eventually raised to the status of Superintendent of Police. It is an admitted feature that, according to service record, petitioner was born on 4th May, 1936. Undisputedly, same date of birth was mentioned in the matriculation certificate.
3. It is the case of petitioner that he was posted on deputation as Superintendent of Police (Crime), Islamabad in 1995. Here some relatives informed that his date of birth was incorrectly recorded and factually petitioner was about four years younger to his brother Mumtaz Ahmad Kiyani. This created anxiety and he searched the documents. It, thus, revealed that date of birth of his brother Mumtaz Ahmad was recorded as 27th October, 1935, which was also supported by entries in National Identity Card. Further inquiries from maternal aunt Mst. Zuhra Jan and maternal uncle Raja Allah Dad disclosed that petitioner was more than three to four years younger to his brother Mumtaz Ahmad Kiyani, whose date of birth on the documents was explicitly recorded as 27th October, 1935. Thus -on thorough probe besides details collected from aforementioned two relatives and other sources; the petitioner calculated his date of birth to be 20th July, 1939. Accordingly, an application was submitted to the District Magistrate, Islamabad, for getting his date of birth recorded in the relevant birth register. It appears that such entries were made in the birth register showing the date as 20th July, 1939. Subsequently, on the basis of entries from birth register, petitioner sought rectification with regard to "date of birth", appearing in original matriculation certificate. It may be seen that somehow, concerned authorities from Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, changed the entries pertaining to age of petitioner and on 31st March, 1996 issued "duplicate" matriculation certificate showing date of-birth as 20th July, 1939.
4. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application to Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, praying for rectification of his date of birth in the service record. But the request was declined vide order; dated 17th December, 1995. Petitioner towards 15th January, 1996 submitted a departmental representation, which was also rejected. Thus aggrieved petitioner challenged aforesaid departmental order before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, through Service Appeal No.391 of 1996, which was ultimately dismissed vide judgment, dated 5th September, 1997. The same has now been assailed by way of petition for leave to appeal.
5. Raja Muhammad Bashir, Advocate Supreme Court, learned counsel for petitioner contended that Service Tribunal had seriously erred in law by relying upon instructions of Punjab government contained in circular Letter No.SRO.II (S&GAD) 6-4/75, dated 4th September, 1975 wherein declaration of age at the time of entry into Government service is deemed conclusive unless applied for rectification on cogent ground within two years from date of entry into service. He stressed that conclusions drawn and inference recorded by the Service Tribunal regarding medical possibility about time span between birth of second child is contrary to jurisprudence and without any substance or justification. According to him, amended matriculation certificate and other evidence constituted sufficient basis for allowing correction of date of birth in service record, which according to him was wrongly denied, thereby totally misreading the entire material.
6. In the light of above submissions, we have carefully perused the case file. Firstly, it may be seen that details narrated by petitioner for becoming aware about his date of birth and its approximate fixation as 20th July, 1939 is surprising and highly improbable. It is not believable that a senior Government servant, specially in police service who by virtue of professional acumen and nature of duties is expected to have keen insight and analytical approach, would remain ignorant about himself and basic factor about his date of birth which revealed to him at the fag end of career when retirement age was just approaching.
7. On thorough scrutiny we have noticed that service rules regarding correction of age within two years from entry into service are apparently sound and logical. Government servant cannot be normally permitted to rise from deep slumber and dramatically announce change in the date of birth; when about to retire. The Service Tribunal has properly considered all facts and aspects of the case and has assigned cogent reasons for declining the relief. In our opinion, legal position discussed and conclusion drawn by the Service Tribunal for passing impugned judgment do not suffer from any defect, illegality or impropriety. We wish to observe that lately a tendency has develope4 whereby unwarranted claims, attempting to show errors in "date of birth" are asserted towards retiring age by fabricating or manipulating documents in that behalf. Obviously, such practice must be discouraged and effectively curbed. Additionally, the grievances agitated before us do not make out any substantial questions of law having public importance. .
For the above reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
A.A./M-12/S Petition dismissed.