Dr. SHAMIM WAHEED Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Health Department, Lahore

ORDER

SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.--- The date of birth of the petitioner, entered in the official record is 19-6-1931. On being questioned the learned counsel for the petitioner states that somewhere in 1990 she made an application to the departmental authorities for correcting her ` date of birth in the official record as 19-6-1934. The application was rejected. She approached the learned High Court in Writ Petition No.4921 of 1991 and an injunction was granted in her favour. It was vacated by this Court on 19-2-1992 in Civil Appeal No.44-L of 1992. The writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed on 13-4-1992. However, the petitioner continued in service and according to the learned counsel upto 18-4-1992. Meanwhile, she had already approached the learned Punjab Service Tribunal. Her claim before the Tribunal as also before this Court is that she is entitled to salary and emoluments from 19-6-1991 to 18-4-1992. The Service Tribunal found that the petitioner retired from service on 19-6-1991 on reaching the age of superannuation and had been paid upto the said date. Accordingly, her appeal, was dismissed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that the petitioner performed the duty upto 18-4-1992 under the interim order passed by learned Lahore High Court and therefore, she is entitled to the salary and emoluments of the said period.

3. The submission has been considered. The superior Courts have deprecated the tendency of the civil servants to approach the Courts for altering their dates of birth towards the end of their career. In this case the petitioner approached the learned Lahore High Court in 60th year of her service. Undisputedly, she reached the age of superannuation on 19-6-1991 and even if the learned High Court granted stay order in her favour she served the department at her own risk in view of the fact the writ petition was ultimately dismissed.

4. Accordingly, neither any substantial question of law of public importance is involved nor we are inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the litigant, who through process of the Court, wanted an undue advantage. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

H.B.T./S-12/SC Petition dismissed.