THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE And Others vs Mrs.
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Punjab Services Tribunal concerning the determination of the date of superannuation of a government employee in the Education Department. The core legal question involved the conflict between the date of birth recorded in the service record versus the entry in the Matriculation certificate, compounded by an affidavit sworn by the respondent affirming her Matriculation certificate birth date, which her counsel claimed was signed under duress. The Supreme Court disposed of the petition as not pressed by the petitioners, with the observation and holding that the impugned judgment of the Services Tribunal shall not be treated as a legal precedent for other cases, given the specific circumstances that the respondent had already retired and the Tribunal had recorded no finding regarding the alleged duress. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court may, upon request in appropriate circumstances, order that a Tribunal judgment not be cited as a legal precedent.
- Whether the date of birth in a service record should prevail over the entry in a Matriculation certificate for determining superannuation?
- Can the Supreme Court order that an impugned judgment of a Services Tribunal shall not be treated as a legal precedent when a petition is not pressed?
- Does an affidavit regarding the correctness of a birth date require a formal finding of duress by the Tribunal if challenged?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Punjab Services Tribunal dated 6-3-1982, is not being pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners with a prayer for an observation by this Court that the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a legal precedent for other cases. By now the respondent has retired.
2. The date of superannuation of the respondent who was in the Education Department of the Provincial Government was being fixed with reference to the entry of date of birth in her Matriculation certificate. She brought the matter before the Provincial Services Tribunal. Her appeal was allowed on the finding that the entry of the date of birth in tier service record would be given preference to the entry in the Matriculation certificate. We find that she had sworn an affidavit (photo copy at page 28 of the record) stating that the birth entry in her Matriculation certificate was correct. When questioned with regard to the affidavit, learned counsel for the respondent after consulting her stated that she had signed and submitted the same under duress.
3. There is no such finding by the Tribunal. Be that as it may, the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the circumstances of this case, is reasonable. This petition is disposed of as not pressed but the impugned judgment dated 6-3-1982 passed by the Services Tribunal shall not be treated as legal precedent.