QAMARUDDIN vs PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and another

ORDER

ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 18-3- 2006 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby Appeal No,3(K)(CS) of 2006 filed by him was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the petition are that petitioner joined Income Tax Service in the year 1977, after having been selected through Competitive Examination held by the Federal Public Service Commission in the year, 1976. The date of birth then recorded at the time of his joining service was 1st of April, 1946. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal after making representations to the Government, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide impugned judgment.

3. The main contention of the petitioner is that his date of birth though recorded at the time of joining in Civil Service was 1-4-1946 but in fact he was born on 1-4-1948. According to him his said date of birth, was written inadvertently in the record.

4. We have gone through the impugned judgment which is elaborate and so many judgments of this Court have been referred therein wherein this sort of relief has been disallowed. Reference has also been made to Rule 12-A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, which reads asunder:- "12-A Alteration in the date of birth.--- The date of birth once recorded at the time of joining Government service shall be final and thereafter no alteration in the date of birth of a civil servant shall be permissible."

5. The 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 above and conclusion drawn by the Tribunal for passing the impugned judgment do not suffer from any defect, illegality or impropriety. We may observe that lately a tendency has developed whereby unwarranted claims, attempting to show error 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 question of law having public importance.

6. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.