MEHTABUDDIN Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.

1. MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑ Appellant Mehtab‑ud‑Din was serving as D.S.P. Banda baud Shah, District Karak when on 27‑9‑1987 he received the impugned order vide which he was informed that on reaching the age of superannuation he will be retired from service on 7‑1‑88. He accordingly approached the authority for seeking his redress regarding his correct date of birth as 23‑12‑1928 and not 8‑1‑1928. His representation was duly recommended by respondent No.l and respondent No.3 but respondent No.2 did not accede to the request; hence the present appeal. According to the appellant he joined the department as a Foot Constable on 11‑1‑1948. He had passed the matriculation examination, therefore, the copy of the said certificate was attached with the service record. However, to his utter‑ dismay he came to know about the wrong entry of the date of birth in his service record in the year 1985 when the seniority list was published and he applied for the correction of the same and later on was informed that the needful has been done. However vide impugned order the same problem again arose which was not considered in the light of the material produced by him.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that it is not a case of the correction of the date of birth after such a long period of service of 40 years. The appellant submitted the School Leaving Certificate to the authority at the time of his recruitment and if some office hand has not given effect to the correct date of birth, the appellant could not be made to suffer for it. He has placed on the record the copy of School Leaving Certificate, the Provisional Certificate and extract of the primary school where he took admission.

3. On the other hand learned Special Government Pleader argued that the appellant at this belated stage could not come forward with this plea. It was entered in his presence to be 8‑1‑1928 and now it could not be altered /amended.

4. We have given our patient hearing to the arguments and have perused the record in the light of which it is clear that the present case is quite distinct from the cases relied upon by the respondents. In the instant case the copy of matriculation certificate was appended, with the service record of the appellant at the very outset and it clearly shows that the date of birth of the appellant is 23‑12‑1928 and not 8‑1‑1928. The negligence on the part of the officer who entered the wrong date should not be allowed to act as a continuous 11 source of wrong to the appellant as there was no fault of him in this connection. For the first time he came to know of wrong entry in the year 1985 and he hurriedly approached the proper forum for its correctness and was given to understand that the needful has been done. Again he was intimated about his retirement on 7‑1‑1988 on the basis of wrong entry by the respondents. His request for its correction was not accepted by the respondents. It is pertinent to note that the Medical Officer could not give the exact date of birth of a person although number of years/the estimated age of an individual can be opined by him. In the present case it is strange to note that how the Medical Officer was certain about the exact date of birth of the appellant. At best the medical certificate could only be relied upon for the medical fitness of the appellant. In presence of the School Leaving Certificate no reliance can be placed on the medical certificate. The delay if any in approaching the proper forum was caused due to the non intimation of the said date to the appellant by the respondents. Law is for the benefit of the subject and valuable rights of an individual cannot be sacrificed on mere technicalities. This being the position, the appeal succeeds which is accordingly accepted, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

5. M.Y.H./67/Sr.N ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed