MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE
This matter arose before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition challenging the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the retirement of a civil servant. The core legal question was whether the Punjab Service Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider that the petitioner was not to blame for the respondent department's inaction in updating his service record book, where his date of birth had been duly corrected from 11-6-1939 to 1-5-1941 by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education via a resolution dated 7-4-1966, and a duplicate Matriculation Certificate reflecting the correction was received by the office in 1964–65 within a year of his joining service. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this question and suspended the operation of the retirement order dated 19-5-1999 directing the petitioner's retirement from 10-6-1999, ordering that the petitioner be treated in service in the meantime.
- Does the Punjab Service Tribunal commit an error of jurisdiction by failing to consider a department's inaction in updating a civil servant's service record following a timely submitted corrected Matriculation Certificate?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted and a retirement order suspended where the employee seeks reflection of a duly corrected date of birth in their service record book?
ORDER
' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---It 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. Theprecise 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.
Cited by 1 case
- RAHAT HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI vs THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF SECONDARY 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1122