2017 P L C (C.S.) 74
[Balochistan High Court (Sibi Bench)]
Before Muhammad Noor Meskanzai, C.J. and Muhammad Ejaz Swati, J
SAIN DAD KHAN
Versus
GENERAL MANAGER HR AND ADMN. (NTDC) WAPDA, LAHORE and 4 others
C.P. No.(s)111 of 2016, decided on 25th August, 2016.
(a) Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973---
----R. 12- A---Alteration in date of birth ---Date of birth once recorded at the time of joining of
government service shall be final and thereafter no alteration in the same was p ermissible ---In
the present case, petitioner instead of assailing order determining his date of birth raised the
question at the verge of his retirement after 26 years of joining of his service ---Constitutional
petition was dismissed.
(b) Pakistan WAPDA E mployees (Date of Birth) Rules, 1994---
----R. 6(c) ---Work charge employee converted as regular employee ---Scope ---Rule 6(c) of
Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Date of Birth) Rules, 1994 provided for alteration of date of birth
related to clerical error and appl icable to those employees who were employed initially as work
charge and were later converted to regular employees of WAPDA on or after July, 1994.
(c) Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Date of Birth) Rules, 1994---
----R. 3--- Documents required for confirmation of date of birth---Claim for alteration of date of
birth ---Documents for confirmation of date of birth, the year of birth or the age of employees of
WAPDA were matriculation certificate, school leaving certificate or municipal birth certificate ---
In the pr esent case, petitioner had claimed alteration of date of birth on the basis of matriculation
certificate, CNIC and local certificate---Rule 3 of Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Date of Birth)
Rules, 1994 was inapplicable to the present case as petitioner was appointed prior to 1994---
Petitioner sought declaration for rectification/correction of his date of birth after 26 years of
joining service which matter had already been decided by competent committee of department
which had attained finality ---Constitutional petition also suffered from laches and was dismissed
accordingly.
Ahmed Khan Dehpal v. Government of Balochistan and others 2013 SCMR 759 and
Professor Dr. Muhammad Aslam Baloch v. Government of Balochistan through Secretary,
Health Department and other s 2014 SCMR 1723 rel.
Ahsan Rafiq Rana for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 29th June, 2016.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD EJAZ SWATI, J. --- The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Line -
Man (NPS -3) by the Superintending Engineer GSO Circle Water and Power Development
Authority (WAPDA), Quetta vide office order dated 2nd August, 1980 and he joined his duty on
3rd August, 1980. Thereafter his services were transferred to National Transmission and
Dispatch Company (NTDC). The respondent No.5 (Executi ve Engineer NTDC, Sibi) vide letter
dated 24th February 2015 informed the petitioner as under:
"You are hereby informed that as per record available in the office your dale of birth is
01-07-1956 and you are near to superannuation age.
Therefore you are ad vised to intimate whether you will avail LPR or Encashment
intimate before time."
2. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 2009, a dispute arose regarding the date of
birth of the petitioner and as per stance of the Department in his service recor d date of birth of
the petitioner was written as 1st July, 1956 and after cutting, it was written as 21st December,
1961. The official respondents declined correction of date of birth of the petitioner as 21st
December, 1961. The petitioner relied upon the following documentary evidence in support of
his alleged date of birth:
(1) Photocopy of Extract of School Register.
(2) Photocopy of Secondary School Certificate issued by Board of Intermediate and
Secondary Education Balochistan, Quetta.
(3) Photocopy of Medical Fitness Certificate.
(4) Photocopy of Seniority list of Line Man.
(5) Photocopy of Service Report.
(6) Local Certificate of petitioner.
(7) Local Certificate of father of petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the D epartment under the WAPDA
Rules was duty bound to record the date of birth of the petitioner in his service book on the basis
of above documentary evidence including Matriculation Certificate; that the Department is the
custodian of service book and after coming to know about cutting, in his service book regarding
his date of birth, the burden lies upon the Department to fix the responsibility of the person
making such cutting but no probe in this regard has been made; that the date of birth of the
petition er was mentioned twice in the seniority list indicating as 21st December, 1961 issued by
the Department, therefore, the alteration made in his date of birth by the Department was illegal
and unlawful; that the Date of Birth Committee has also failed to act in accordance with law.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the appended record.
The petitioner joined the service on 5th August, 1980, wherein his date of birth was mentioned as
1st July, 1956. The photocopy of extract of service report reveals that after cutting the aforesaid
date of birth, it was mentioned as 21st December, 1961. The aforesaid question related to
correction of his date of birth was raised by the petitioner before the department in the year 2009,
which was declined, vide office order dated 29th July, 2009. The said order was not challenged
by the petitioner, which has attained finality, however, when the Department issued letter dated
24th February, 2015 informing the petitioner that on the basis of his dat e of birth i.e. 1st July,
1956, he is to be retired in June, 2016. The petitioner again approached the Department for
correction of his date of birth, which was declined by the Department vide letter dated 21st
March, 2016, which reads as under:
"The case has been examined but the date of birth of Mr. Sain Dad, L.M.- 1 has already
been determined vide this office order No.CExe/NTDCL/AM(A)A -477/10/28/8632- 33
dated 29- 7-2009 and there exist no provisions in the Pakistan Wapda Employees (Date of
Birth) Rules 1994 applicable to NTDCL employees to review cases, it is regretted that
the DOB of the official cannot be revised at this stage."
It appears that the petitioner instead of assailing the order dated 29th July, 2009 before
the proper forum, raised the same question of his date of birth at the verge of his retirement after
26 years of joining of his service. The petitioner joined service on 3rd August, 1980 and as per
Rule 12- A of Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 "the date of
birth once recorded at the time of joining government service shall be final and thereafter no
alteration in the date of birth of civil servant shall be permissible."
5. The aforesaid amendment was brought vide notification dated 31st July, 2000 and the
WAPDA also adopted the above notification vide order dated 17th January, 2001, which reads as
under:
"Authority has decided to adopt the above Notification No.SRO -521(I)/2000 dated 31-
07-2000, issued by Cabinet Secretariat Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan,
Islamabad Mutatis Mutandis."
Sub- Rule (b) (i) of Rule 5 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Date of Birth) Rules,
1994 (DOB), also provides as under:
"Date of birth once declared and recorded at the time of entry in Wapda service cannot be
altered except in case of a clerical error, with approval of the Authority in respect of
employees in grade 17 and above to be routed through General Manager (Admn.) Wapda.
The cases of employees upto grade 16 will be approved by respective members with
cases to be routed through a Scrutiny Committee to be set up under each Member. The
Committee will include representative from S&GA."
Subsection (c) of Section 6 of Rules, 1994 though provides alteration of date of birth
related to clerical error but said rule is applicable to those employees who were employed
initially as Work Charge and were later converted as regular employees of WAPDA on or after
July 1994.
6. The petitioner in the instant case has claimed alteration of his date of birth on the basis of
Matricu lation Certificate, CNIC and Local Certificate i.e. confirmatory documents as provided
under section 3 of DOB, Rules, 1994, but the said rule is inapplicable in the instant case as the
petitioner was appointed prior to 1994. The petitioner on the basis of photocopy of documents
described in para No.1 of the petition raised controversial question of fact and sought declaration
for rectification/ correction of his date of birth after 26 years of joining service, which matter had
already been decided by the co mpetent DOB Committee of the Department vide order dated 29th
July, 2009, which has taken finality. The instant petition in this respect also suffers from laches.
Reference in this respect is to be made to the case of Ahmed Khan Dehpal v Government of
Balo chistan and others 2013 SCMR 759, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan
observed as under:
The idea to have the date of birth altered appears to be an off shoot of an afterthought. It,
as a matter of fact, has become a common practice with the civi l servants to file a civil
suit for correction of date of birth when they come to the verge of their retirement just to
prolong their tenure for enjoying the perks and privileges for a few more years at the cost
of others.
How comes this that the petitione r who joined the service in 1982 could not know about
his actual date of birth despite the passage of more than two decades. Especially when at
various stages during his studies as well as service he filled many examination forms,
other pro formas as well as service book."
In the case of Professor Dr. Muhammad Aslam Baloch v. Government of Balochistan
through Secretary, Health Department and others 2014 SCMR 1723, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed as under:
"The contention of the learned counsel for the p etitioner that the case of the petitioner
falls out side the purview of Rule 11 is also misconceived. The language of Rule 11 of
the Rules which deals with the alteration in the date of birth clearly suggests that the date
of birth of a Civil Servant once recorded at the time of joining the Government Service
shall be final and would not be altered except where a clerical mistake occurs in
recording the same in the service record. It further provides that the request of a Civil
Servant for change of date of birth shall not be entertained after a period of two years
from the date of such entry in his service record. The petitioner joined the service on 6- 3-
1991 and since then up to the year 2004 has never objected to the entry of his date of
birth. The record reveals that the department issued seniority lists at times in which date
of birth of the Petitioner was mentioned as 16- 11-1951. The material produced and
examined by the Tribunal clearly suggests that the petitioner got altered/changed his date
of birth when he was at the verge of his retirement in the year 2011. The original date of
birth of the appellant, as per material examined by the Tribunal was 16 -11-1951 which
was got altered by petitioner to 16 -11-1954, by fabricated documents. The Rules do not
authorize the competent authority to entertain any representation for altering the date of
birth of a Civil Servant beyond two years in the service record."
In view of the above, Constitutional Petition No.111 of 2016 is dismissed.
WA/58/Bal. Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.