Rahim Bux Panhwar (Petitioner) VS D.P.O.Operation Sukkur and ors (Respondent)

C

C.P No.D-109 of 2008.

For Katcha Peshi.

6.5.2009. Mr. Rasool Bux Siyal advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Liaquat Ali Shar Addl.A.G alongwith PDSP on behalf of D.P.O

Sukkur.

ARSHAD NOOR KHAN,-J, By this constitutional petition under Article 199 of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner praying therein the correction in his date of birth.

The case of petitioner in brief is that he was appointed as police constable on 5.5.1970 in police department and thereafter gradually he was promoted to the rank of head constable and thereafter promoted as ASI on 26th July 1993. Subsequently he was also promoted to the rank of SIP on 30th October,1998 and was posted as SHO at P.S Panoakil. It is further stated in the petition, that during the posting as SHO certain enquiry was initiated against him which was proved and on a matter of punishment, he was reverted to ASI by the D.P.O vide order dated 30.11.1998.

Against demotion he preferred departmental appeal but he did not succeeded and during the pendency of appeal, he was retired from service on 4.1.2008. It is further stated in his petition that his date of birth was wrongly altered from 1.1.1951 to 1.1.1948 and on the basis of said correction in his date of birth he was retired from the service, as such the petitioner prays as under:-

“(a) To declare the Order No.162/EsII/51 dated 7.1.2008 of

respondent no.4 conveying the rejection of request of

petitioner for correction of actual birth date as 1.1.1951 in the

service Record/Service Roll by dubbing it as belated as illegal

malafide and without lawful authority and writ be issued for

correcting the birth date of petitioner on the basis of relevant

record.

(b)To declare further that order of retirement of petitioner w.e.f. 4.1.2008 bearing No.986-OB/2008 dated 18.1.2008 passed by respondents No.1 is also void, illegal and malafide hence be struck down and consequential reliefs be awarded.

(c)To award cost of the petition.

(d)To award any other relief as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”

Notice of the present petition has been given to respondents.

We have heard Mr. Rasool Bux Siyal learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Liaquat Ali Shar learned Addl.A.G.

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the date of birth of petitioner was wrongly changed from 1.1.1951 to 4.1.1948 and he has been retired forcibly by respondents from service which fact was agitated before the respondents by filing of representation but the department did not listen the petitioner and even the D.P.O under whom the petitioner was working had also recommended the case of petitioner for obtaining loan from House Building Finance Corporation, but neither the said recommendation of loan nor NIC of the petitioner has been taken into consideration by the respondents as such the order of respondents is illegal, in operative and malafide. In support of his contention he has relied upon the case of Administrative Committee of High Court of Sindh, through Registrar, High Court of Sindh, Karachi and another vs. Arjun Ram K. Talreja and another reported in 2008 P.L.C (C.S) 376.

Mr. Liaquat Ali Shar learned Addl.A.G vehemently opposed the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has contended that at the time of induction in service the petitioner had disclosed his date of birth which was recorded in his service book and on the basis of his own showing the date of birth he was retired from service on his attaining the age of superannuation as such no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the respondents in retiring the petitioner from service after attaining the age of superannuation.

We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available before us.

Admittedly the petitioner was appointed as police constable on 5.5.1970 and it has also not been disputed that his service book was maintained as per the date of birth disclosed by him. The petitioner remained in service for more than 25 years, when in the year 2006 he started agitating his date of birth allegedly recorded in service book wrongly, and for the said purpose he has relied upon school leaving certificate, the case recommended by the D.P.O for obtaining loan from House Building Finance Corporation and CNIC, but the record shows that the petitioner after induction of his service did not applied for change of his date of birth in service book nor challenge his date of birth recorded wrongly by the respondents. According to service rules, the incumbent after his induction in service is required to get correction in his date of birth within two years in his service and in case he did not apply to employer for correction of his date of birth, the same could not be considered, subsequently after lapse of years together, the same point also came for consideration before this court in which one of us (Arshad Noor Khan-J) was member, in the case of Mrs. Yasmeen Abbasi Vs. Province of Sindh and others reported in SBLR 2009 Sindh 115, wherein after examination of so many authorities of the superior courts it was observed that the employee who has been inducted in government service should have applied for correction in his date of birth within two years from the date of his induction in service and after two years his claim regarding correction of date of birth could not be considered or entertained. In the case of Mrs Yaseem Abbasi, supra, the case of Mr. Arjam Ram K. Talreja was also considered by us and was distinguished on the ground that the respondent Arjan Ram K. Talreja was pursuing the correction in his date of birth even prior to his induction in judicial service and continued his efforts during whole of service and finally service tribunal for judicial officers accepted his plea and corrected his date of birth which is not the case of the present petitioner, as the present petitioner started agitating his date of birth in the year 2006 by filing of application, though photo copy of same has been filed alongwith this petition but it bears no date, but the said application was forwarded by R.P.O Sukkur to P.P.O Sindh Karachi vide his covering letter dated 4.2.2006 therefore it could be said that he has started agitating his date of birth in the month of February, 2006 after about 26 years of service in police department and such claim of the petitioner at such belated stage could not be considered in view of the observation made in the case of Mrs. Yasmeen Abbasi.

For all the aforesaid reasons and circumstances we do not find any reason to issue writ for correction in the date of birth of the petitioner. The present petition having no merits is therefore dismissed in limine with no order as to cost alongwith the listed applications.

JUDGE.

JUDGE.