BASHIR AHMAD Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, NANKANA SAHIB

Bashir Ahmad, Patwari, Tehsil Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Nankana Sahib and the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal be has prayed that the order (Annexure `G') of Assistant Commissioner, Nankana Sahib and the order (Annexure 'J') of the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore be set aside and respondent No.1. be directed to correct the appellant's service record in terms of the birth entry contained in Annexure 'B' and declare the appellant to be still in service. He has also prayed that any other relief which the facts and circumstances of the case and ends of justice warrant be granted to the appellant.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant lately has been working as Patwari in Halqa Dharam Singh, Tehsil Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura. The appellant came to know that inadvertently his date of birth in his service record had been entered as 4th January, 1923 instead of 15th May, 1926. On coming to know of this inadvertent mistake in his service record, he applied to the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Nankana Sahib, respondent No. 1, vide his application dated 28th December, 1982 for correction of the date of birth in his service record. Certified copy (Annexure `B') from the birth register in which the birth date of the appellant is shown as 15th May, 1926, was also submitted alongwith the aforesaid application. Agreeing with this request of the appellant, Tehsildar Nankana Sahib, submitted the case to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Nankana Sahib for sympathetic consi deration regarding changing his date of birth as 15th May, 1926. The same recommendations were made to the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhu pura by Assistant Commissioner, Nankana Sahib. The Deputy Commis sioner, returned the case to the Assistant Commissioner, Nankana with the remarks that the testimonials viz. Primary/Middle/Matriculation certificates and actual record of the District Health Officer be checked and a complete report be submitted to him. Since the record of the Primary as well as the High School, where the appellant got education, had been destroyed as per reports, dated 10th February, 1983 and dated 12th February, 1983, of the Head Masters of the relevant Schools, the appel lant could not supply education testimonials as required by the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura. The case was again referred to the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Nankana Sahib seeking his guidance in the matter, vide his memo. No. l l6/AC, dated 15th February, 1983. The Deputy Commissioner, Shaikhupura, vide memo. dated 3rd March, 1983, informed the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Nankana Sahib that in the absence of docu mentary proof like matriculation certificate no opinion pertaining to correction of date of birth could be given and that unless date of birth of the appellant could be corrected by a competent, authority the appellant's continuance in service would not be legal. ‑Consequently the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Narikana Sahib, vide memo. dated 5th March, 1983, issued order of the retirement from service of the appellant as per entries in the service record as the appellant had reached the age of superannuation. The appellant made an appeal to the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore which was dismissed, vide order dated 9th April, 1983. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the competent authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Nankana Sahib had agreed with the request of the appellant for correction of the date of birth as 15th May, 1926 instead of 4th January, 1923 as originally entered in the service record of the appellant, on the ground that this was inadvertent mistake and the correct date of birth be taken as 15th May, 1926, as per birth certificate (Annexure `B') of the District Health Officer issued, vide No. 116/B, dated 27th December, 1982. This however, was not agreed upon by the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura who wanted a documentary proof, like matriculation certificate of the appellant. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the competent authority in the appellant's case is the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Nankana Sahib. As he had satisfied himself that the correct date of birth of the appellant was 15th May, 1926 according to the birth certificate given by the health authorities, he was himself competent to order for correction of the service record of the appellant and referring of this matter to the Deputy Com missioner, Sheikhupura was unnecessary and not required. Furthermore, the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura has not applied his mind while deciding the case of the appellant in asking for the matriculation certificate, as the certificate of the headmaster of the high school (Annexure `D'), makes it clear that the appellant had studied up to Class IX. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant ac the record of primary school as well as of the high school, where the appellant got education, had been destroyed and was not available, hence his date of birth certificate given by the Health Department is an authentic and authorised document, as an evidence regarding his correct date of birth which could not be refused or rejected. Concluding his arguments, it has been prayed that the respondents be directed to make correct entry of date of birth in his service record as 15th May, 1926 instead of 4th January, 1923.

5. Rebutting the above arguments, the learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the Assistant Commis sioner/Collector, Nankana Sahib. It has been submitted by him that the entry regarding date of birth can be corrected only within a period of two years of its entry. As no request was made by the appellant during that period hence his date of birth cannot be corrected at this belated stage. Furthermore, as the appellant has failed to supply a documentary proof like matriculation certificate as ordered by the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura, hence in the absence of this documentary proof, there is no justification for changing of the entry. Thus, the request of the appellant has been correctly rejected by the competent authority.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have carefully studied the record of this case as well. It has been admitted by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Nankana Sahib that there was inadvertent mistake regarding entry of date of birth in the service record of the appellant and recommendation was made to the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura for allowing its correction. Thus, the objection of the learned District Attorney that the entry of date of birth should have been got corrected within two years of this entry is not a valid objection and is ignored. The only issue to be adjudicated in this case is whether the matriculation certificate as demanded by the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura should be taken as authentic documentary proof for ascertaining the date of birth of the appellant on the birth certificate given by the District Health Officer, would serve the same purpose. It is clear from the Annexure `D' attached with the appeal that the appellant had studied upto 9th class only, hence production of matriculation certificate is out of question. It has been certified by the respective Headmasters of the Primary and High Schools, where the appel lant got education, that the record had been destroyed (Annexures `D" and "D"). Thus, there is no possibility of supply of the education testimonials. Under the circumstances, the date of birth certificate, supplied by the Health Department (Annexure `B') issued by the District Health Officer, vide No. 116/B, dated 27th December, 1982 is the authenticated documentary proof and cannot be denied or refused.

7. Keeping the above analysis in view; the appeal is accepted. The impugned orders are set aside. The date of birth of the appellant is ordered to be corrected as 15th May, 1926 instead of 4th January, 1923, I according to the birth certificate, dated 27th December, 1982 (Annexure 'B') certified by the District Health Officer.

There will be no order as to costs.

M. Y. M. Appeal accepted.