SAADULLAH KHAN MARRI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and anothers
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against his retirement from service with effect from 1-3-1994. The core legal question concerned the determination of the petitioner's correct date of birth after discrepancies appeared in gradation lists, and whether a school leaving certificate could replace a missing matriculation certificate for altering the recorded date of birth near retirement. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal rightly rejected the petitioner's belated plea for alteration of his date of birth, as he failed to produce an authentic matriculation certificate as required by the rules and his service documents consistently recorded his birth year as 1934. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant's request for the alteration of his date of birth near the end of his career, without producing authentic primary documentation such as a matriculation certificate, must be rejected as an afterthought when official service records consistently support an earlier date.
- Whether a school leaving certificate can be accepted for the alteration of a civil servant's date of birth in the absence of a matriculation certificate?
- Can a civil servant seek the alteration of his date of birth towards the end of his career based on delayed pleas?
- Are entries in official service documents and history cards considered reliable for determining a civil servant's date of birth?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 28-2-1995 whereby his appeal before the Tribunal against the order of his retirement with effect from 1-3-1994 was dismissed.
2. Saadullah Khan Marri petitioner had started his career by joining the Local Government Department of the erstwhile Province of West Pakistan in the year, 1960-61 as Assistant Director in BPS-17. On the dismemberment of the Province of West Pakistan, he was absorbed in the Provincial Civil Service. In the year, 1974 he was promoted as Divisional Director (BPS-18) in the Local Government Department under the Government of Balochistan. ,In the same year, he was selected as 'Lateral Entrant' for appointment to a post in the All Pakistan unified Group and was allocated to the Secretariat Group. In the following year, he was appointed as Deputy Commissioner in Balochistan and thereafter he held different posts in BPS-19 and BPS-20 under the Provincial Government. During his posting as Secretary to Government of Balochistan in the Local Government Department, Gradation Lists of A.P.U.G. Were published by the Establishment Division.
In some of those lists the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 1-3-1944 while in others as 1-3-1934. In view of variation of entries qua his date of birth in Gradation Lists, the petitioner approached the Establishment Secretary to Government of Pakistan, for resolving the issue of his date of birth. He was, therefore, advised to produce his Matriculation Examination Certificate which is the only authentic document for ascertaining his exact date of birth. According to the petitioner, his original Matriculation Certificate was misplaced. He had passed his last mentioned examination in the year, 1953 from the Government Pilot Secondary Schbol, Larkana, held by the University of Sindh. When he approached the authorities of Sindh University for granting him the duplicate certificate, he was informed that the record pertaining to the year, 1953 in which he had passed his Matriculation Examination having been misplaced during the shifting of Campus from Hyderabad to Jamshdro was not available and, therefore, he was advised to contact the Government Pilot Secondary School, Larkana for the purpose. He was accordingly issued the School Leaving Certificate on the basis of which his date of birth recorded as 1-3-1939. He produced the aforementioned certificate to the Secretary Establishment Division. Nonetheless, the petitioner was retired from service with effect from 1-3-1994 vide notification dated 20-3-1994. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which, as stated earlier, was dismissed on 28-2-1995.
3. The Service Tribunal held the view that under GFR-116, only the Matriculation Certificate issued by the appropriate Board/University is accepted as a valid documerit for the ascertainment of the date of birth of a civil servant but the petitioner notwithstanding repeated demands failed to produce it; that one of the two certificates dated 11-5-1994 could not be treated as authentic because it did not bear the certificate of the Registrar of the University of Sindh; that from History Card, Application Form and other service documents bearing the signature of the petitioner placed by the respondents on the file recorded his date of birth as 1-3-1934; that he had utterly failed to produce any gradation list recording his date of birth as 1-3-1944; and that pursuant to para. 3 of' the instructions issued by the Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Finance (Regulation Wing) vide their O.M. No, 9(5)R.2/90, dated 21-11-1990, a civil servant is required to sign certain documents such as service book, age and health documents and the date, month and year of birth but if he keeps silent over it for years and towards the end of his career he comes forward for alteration of his date of birth with any plea it must be rejected forthwith being an afterthought.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the Service Tribunal has erred in accepting the entries in the departmental record and history card as conclusive evidence of the date of birth of the petitioner as against his date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate issued by the Government Pilot Secondary School, Larkana which was more than 30 years old and to which presumption of genuineness is attached.
5. The above contention seems to be devoid of any force as the petitioner despite repeated demands has not been able to produce any authentic document recording his date of birth as 1-3- 1939.
6. Even otherwise, the instant petition does not involve any question of law of public importance as to warrant interference this Court. The impugned judgment is found to be just and equitable. The petition has no merit and, therefore, leave to appeal is accordingly refused.