MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE
The petitioner challenged the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the refusal to correct his date of birth in his service record based on a subsequent correction made in his Matriculation Certificate by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could be penalized for the department's failure to update his service record despite a duplicate certificate being received within a year of joining service. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the question, suspended the operation of the retirement order, and ordered that the petitioner shall be treated in service in the meantime. The court established that an employee should not suffer due to the administrative inaction or delay of the department in updating service records when proper notification and corrections have been duly made by the relevant educational board.
- Whether a civil servant can be penalized for the department's failure to update his date of birth in the service record based on a corrected Matriculation Certificate?
- Does the Punjab Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to ignore the admitted position of departmental inaction regarding service record corrections?
ORDER
' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Ii is contended that the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in his Matriculation Certificate before joining the service with the Punjab Police was indicated as 11-6- 1939. On petitioner's application to the concerned Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, the above date of birth was corrected to read as 1-5-1941 and a Resolution of the Board in that regard was passed on 7-4-1966. The correction made in the Matriculation Certificate as above was not reflected in the Service Record Book of the petitioner although a copy of the duplicate Certificate of Matriculation was received in the Office in the year 1964-65 i.e. Within a year of his joining service on 7-3-1964. The precise plea is that the Punjab Service Tribunal is in error of jurisdiction in not adverting to the admitted position that petitioner is not to blame for the inaction of the respondent-Department.
2. To consider the above question, leave is granted and the operation of order, dated 19th of May, 1999 directing petitioner's retirement with effect from 10-6-1999 is suspended with the result that he shall be treated in service, meantime.