ABDUL MAJEED vs PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICER and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's request to alter his recorded date of birth after thirty-five years of service. The core legal question was whether a civil servant could seek an alteration of their date of birth decades after entry into service, and whether the Chief Minister had the authority to grant age relaxation contrary to established service rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's claim was time-barred and lacked merit. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had remained silent regarding his date of birth for thirty-five years, and that under the relevant service rules, such alterations must be sought within a strict two-year period from the commencement of service. Furthermore, the Court held that the Chief Minister lacked the legal authority to grant age relaxation in contravention of the applicable rules. The judgment reaffirms the principle that service records, once established, cannot be altered after an inordinate delay, and that administrative discretion cannot override mandatory statutory service regulations.
- Can a civil servant seek an alteration of their date of birth after an inordinate delay of thirty-five years?
- Does the Chief Minister have the authority to grant age relaxation in service matters contrary to the Balochistan Civil Servants Rules 1979?
- Is an alteration of date of birth permissible under Rule 9.7(2) of the Police Rules 1934 after the expiry of the two-year limitation period?
- Article 212, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Rule 9.7(2), Police Rules 1934
- Rule 12(A), Balochistan Civil Servants Rules 1979
' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 30-10-2009 whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed.
2. On failure to get altered the date of birth, petitioner, approached. The learned Service Tribunal by means of appeal and on dismissal, the jurisdiction as conferred upon this Court under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been invoked.
3. Heard Mr. M.W.N. Kohli, learned ASC on behalf of petitioner who mainly argued that the legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated in. Its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. In order to substantiate the said al Identity Card, Primary School Certificate, Report of Medical Board and age relaxation given by the Chief Minister, Baluchistan has been ignored without any rhyme or reason. It is next contended that the provisions as enumerated in Rule 9.7(2) of the Police Rules, 1934 have been misconstrued and misinterpreted causing serious prejudice against the petitioner.
4. We have carefuly examined the above mentioned contentions in the light of revelant provisions of law and record of the case. The petitioner had joined service on 20-10-1973 and got recorded his date of birth as 20-10-1948 and no request whatsoever was made to get it altered till the age of superannuation. The petitioner woke-up from a deep slumber after 35 years and no explanation whatsoever could be furnished regarding this silence which speaks a volume about his conduct and genuineness of his claim which has rightly been turned down by the - learned Service Tribunal, in view of the provisions as enumerated in Rule 9.7(2) of the Police Rules, 1934 whereby an alteration in date of birth can be sought within two years of the service which could not be done for the reasons best known to the petitioner. Besides that under Rule 12 (A) of the Balochistan Civil Servants Rules, 1979 no such alteration is permissible. It may be mentioned here that Chief Minister has not exercised his discretion in accordance with law and settled norms of justice as no such relaxation in age could have been granted by him which is not in consonance with the above referred rules.
5. It is worth mentioning that no substantial question of law of public importance is involved and the conclusion as arrived at by the learned Service Tribunal, after examination of entire record, could not be regarded as capricious or perverse and no question of law of public importance arose for consideration. In such view of the matter, leave to appeal cannot be granted. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in the following authorities:- ' Karamat Hussain v. Province of the Punjab 1982 SCM R 897, Razia Sultana v. Government of Punjab 1981 SCM R 715, M. Yamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD1980 SC 22, Nisar Ahmad Khawaja v. Muhammad Usman Muhammad Khan Wasan 1980 SCM R 722, Yousaf Hussain Siddiqui v. Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Peshawar 1976 SCM R 268, Director Food v. Rashid Ahmad 1990 SCM R 1446, Province of Punjab v. Rao Abdul Jalil Khan 1989 SCM R 330, Abdul Razaq v. Province of Punjab 1980 SCM R 876, Muhammad Yaqub Sheikh, District Engineer, District Council, Toba Tek Sing v. Government of Punjab through Secretary. Local Government and Rural'
Development Lahore and others 1987 SCM R 1354, Director Food, Punjab, Lahore v. Muhammad Yasin Bhatti 1988 SCM R 496.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petition being meritless is dismissed and .