GHAZANFFAR BAIG Versus SUPERINTENDENT, TELEGRAPH WORKSHOP, KOTRI

DECISION

These are seven similar appeals preferred by Telegraph Workshop's workers against Superintendent, Telegraph Workshop, Kotri regarding alteration of their date of birth entered in the service record for the purpose of determining age. of superannuation.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellants were employed, on temporary work‑charged basis as Telegraph Workers in about the year 1952. In the year 1973 they were regularised and they were asked to furnish proof of age. Some of them produced documents while the other's numbering 100 could not produce any document. The present appellants happened to be the workers who had no proof of age. They were, therefore, referred to the Civil Surgeon for their age and fitness certificates. The approximate ages certified by the Civil Surgeon were entered in their Service Books. The appellant workers did not dispute their ages recorded by the Telegraph Workshop but when on 14‑10‑1991 they were issued a common notice of retirement mentioning respective dates on which they were to complete sixty years they made applications to the respondent, Telegraph Workshop, producing birth certificates and school leaving certificates for correction of their ages. These were not accepted by the Company and they were actually retired on the dates mentioned in the above letter. After grievance notice they filed grievance petitions before the Labour Court.

3. The learned Labour Court No VI, Hyderabad dismissed the grievance petitions holding that they had produced only photostat copies of the Certificates which had not been authenticated by the Foreign Office and it had not been proved by the concerned appellants that they were genuine documents.

4. I have gone through the files of each of the appellants and examined the documents produced by them. The Certificates of Civil Surgeon, Hyderabad make a mention or their ages according to their own statement and also by appearance, which are entered in their Service Books. The appellants have produced some documents, after their retirement to show that they can still continue to work. They are as under:‑

(1) Appellant Ghazanffar Baig

He has produced Municipal Birth Certificate from Sialkot. It shows his date of birth to be 11‑12‑1937. The date of registration 14‑12‑1937. The certificate was obtained on 15‑10‑1992 and is in original. The date of birth in his Service Book is 4‑4‑1933. There is no reason why this entry in the record of birth of Sialkot duly attested should not be accepted. The medical opinion as to age being only approximate without the requisite data for age certificate. The medical certificate mentions only age by appearance and the opinion is not based on medical examination as to age. The appellant is, thus, entitled to alteration in his date of birth according to this Birth Certificate and his age of superannuation should be 10‑12‑1997.

(2) Appellant Nabi Bux

According to Certificate of Civil Surgeon he had to retire on 27‑12‑1993. He has not produced any certificate of age except an Identity Card. Identity Card cannot be accepted as proof of age since the age given by the applicant is recorded in it. He has stated in evidence that he has no other proof of his age. His age, in the Service Book, cannot therefore, be altered.

(3) Appellant Muhammad Ali

His date of retirement, according to the Service Record, is 30‑7‑1993. He has produced photostat copy of Birth Certificate from Luck now (India). This Certificate is dated 26‑5‑1992, which shows the date of Birth as 22‑7‑1939. It bears signature of Health Officer, Luck now. This birth certificate is only photostat copy and though issued on 26‑5‑1992 it has not been authenticated or attested by the Foreign Office. It cannot, therefore, be accepted. His date of 4 Birth' as entered in the Service Record, should, therefore, stand.

(4) Appellant Alam Zaeeb

His date of retirement entered in his Service Book is 17‑12‑1993. He has produced photostat copy of the School Leaving Certificate in which his date of birth is mentioned as 2‑2‑1946 in the school record. He had entered School on 14‑6‑1958 and left it on 4‑7‑1958 in the first standard. This Certificate is signed by Headmaster, Government High School. (The place is not legible). The Attestation Column is not filed up. This Certificate, therefore, cannot be relied upon as genuine. The date entered in Service Book will determine the age of his retirement.

(5) Appellant Gulistan

The age of /retirement mentioned in his Service Book is 16‑8‑1993. He has produced photostat copy of the Birth Certificate showing that he was born on 16‑8‑1938 in a village in Haripur but this certificate is neither attested nor authenticated. It has been issued in 1992. According to this certificate the appellant should retire on 15‑8‑1998 but this certificate does not appear to be genuine and cannot be relied upon.

(6) Appellant Khan Gul '

??????????? The age of retirement of Khan Gul, according to his Service Book, is 29‑8‑1993. He has produced photostat copy of Birth Certificate from Shahadat? ul‑Millad, Khyber Agency, Tehsil Barra showing date of birth as 1‑4‑1937. This is countersigned by Assistant Political Agent, Hazara on 14‑8‑1992 and attested by Dr. Meer Hyder Afridi but the original has not been produced nor does not show that it refers to the appellant. This certificate, therefore, cannot be acted upon.

(7) Appellant Jameel Khan

Retirement age of Jameel Khan in his Service Book is 7‑1‑1994. The appellant claims that, according to his age certificate, it should be 6‑11‑1999. He has produced a photostat copy of School Leaving Certificate. The name of the School has been left blank. The place of birth is shown as Agra (India) and the date of birth as 6‑11‑1939. Date of joining school is 20‑10‑1950. The date of leaving School is 31‑11‑1960. This copy is also not attested by Foreign Office. The signature of Headmaster is also illegible. This copy is not genuine and cannot be relied upon.

5. ? Thus, except in the case of Ghazanffar Baig, the appeals of the remaining six appellants are dismissed. Appellant Ghazanffar Baig's date of birth may be altered according to birth certificate and he may be reinstated in service till the date of retirement calculated according to the new date. He is not entitled to any back benefits, as the Certificate was not produced during the period of his service.

H.B.T./2450/Lb.S ? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.