EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CBDC, LAHORE DIVISION Versus KARAM DIN

This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 13‑10‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No‑1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and it was directed that his date of retirement was 17‑5‑1984 and not 15‑6‑1982. It was further directed that the amount of Rs.10,837.83 deducted as over payment should be refunded.

2. The facts are that in the service record of the respondent his date of birth was given as 16‑6‑1922. He was got medically examined on 18‑5‑1979 and the doctor declared that on the said date his age was fifty years. According to the certificate, the date of birth was 18‑5‑1924 and accordingly he was retired on 17‑5‑1984. Audit objection was raised to the effect that the appellants could not change the date of birth, therefore, the effect of the retirement of the respondent was given from 15‑6‑82.

3. Unless contrary is proved, the presumption is that in the service record the date of birth is given according to the information furnished by the employee concerned, therefore, without any strong evidence the said date cannot be ignored. In the present case the appellants had relied upon a medical certificate. Firstly medical certificates give ages approximately and secondly they are based upon general appearance and thus cannot be said to be the opinion of an expert. Any person by appearance can assess the age of a person.

4. However, the appeal is time‑barred and there is no cogent reason for the condonation of delay. The ground given in the application for condonation of delay is that the department supplied necessary documents to the learned counsel late. This is no ground for condonation. The counsel has not to give his justification for filing the appeal late, but the appellants have to put forward cogent reasons by which they were prevented from bringing the appeal in time. Since no cogent reason is given, this is not a case for condonation of delay.

5. As a result, the appeal is rejected as time‑barred in limine.

A.E./4761Lb.P Appeal rejected.