Pakistan Case Law
1994 SCMR 1633

M.R. KHALID vs CHIEF SECRETARY, PUNJAB and another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1994 SCMR 1633
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 726-L of 1992 Appeal No, 270 of 1991
Date1993-12-19
Judge(s)Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah
Authored bySaad Saood Jan
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal concerning the correction of his date of birth and retirement order. The petitioner, who joined the Provincial Civil Service on 19-8-1955 with a self-declared date of birth of 2-6-1930, was retired upon reaching the age of 60 years on 1-6-1990. Prior to retirement, he obtained a declaratory decree from an Additional District Judge fixing his date of birth as 2-6-1933, in a suit against the University of the Punjab to which the Government was not a party. Armed with this decree, he sought correction of his service record, which the Government and subsequently the Service Tribunal rejected due to his prolonged acquiescence and failure to object during his 35-year service career. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's prolonged silence and failure to challenge his recorded date of birth in periodic gradation lists disentitled him to a favourable exercise of discretion by the Government, and a decree obtained in a suit where the Government was not a party did not bind it. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a civil servant can seek correction of his date of birth at the fag end of his service after decades of acquiescence?
  • Does a declaratory decree regarding a date of birth obtained in a suit where the Government was not a party bind the Provincial Government?
  • Can a civil servant challenge the rejection of a representation regarding his date of birth before the Service Tribunal successfully after remaining silent over his recorded birth date in periodic gradation lists?
date of birthcivil servantretirementservice tribunaldeclaratory decreeacquiescence

ORDER

' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner joined the Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch) through a Competitive Examination on 19-8-1955. He stated his date of birth to be 2-6-1930. He held senior appointments in the Provincial Administration and in accordance with his self-declared date of birth he was retired from service with effect from 1-6-1990, that is, when he reached the age of 60 years.

2. A few years before his retirement he filed a civil suit against the University of the Punjab for a declaration to the effect that he was actually born on 14-11-1933 at Chah Ram Wala, Tehisl Shorkot.

The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. However, on appeal, an Additional District Judge at Lahore accepted his appeal and granted him a declaration to the effect that his date of birth was 2-6-1933. Apparently, the University did not care to challenge the declaration granted by the Additional District Judge in a higher forum.

3. Armed with the decree of the Additional District Judge the petitioner made a representation to the Government for correcting his date of birth and rescinding the order of his retirement. His representation was rejected by the Government whereupon he preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not persuaded that any case for interference with the judgment of the learned Tribunal has been made out. Admittedly, while taking the Competitive Examination the, petitioner had himself declared his date of birth to be 2-6-1930.

He remained in service for about 35 years thereafter. His name together with his declared date of birth appeared in the gradation lists and civil A lists periodically published by the Provincial Government. He did not object to the incorrect publication of his date of birth till a few years before his retirement. The mere fact that he was able to obtain a decree from the Additional District Judge did not advance his case for the Government was not a party to the civil suit brought by him.

Though the Government has undoubtedly the power to correct an incorrectly recorded date of birth of a civil servant but the silence of the petitioner over the major portion of his service was such that he did not merit a favourable decision from the Government. We are, therefore, unable to find any substance in this petition. It is hereby dismissed.

Cited by 22 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.