Date of birth – My Blog

There are two certificates which purport to have been issued by the Punjab University; in one of them, the date of birth of the appellant is recorded as 4.2.1937 while in the other the same is recorded as 4.2.1939 — The stand taken by the Punjab University is that according to its record, the correct date of birth of the appellant is 4.2.1937 and not as 4.2.1939 obviously, the certificate subsequently issued in the year 1993 in which, according to the appellant, is a ‘duplicate’ copy is of doubtful authenticity and cannot be relied upon. M. Din Kausar v. AJK Govt. 2002 SCR 236 (A)
Contention that the date of birth of Government servant could be changed within period of two years of his joining the service is concerned, no such rule has been shown to be in force in Azad Kashmir — The authority relied upon, merely says that ‘a Government employee is debarred to seek the correction of his date of birth after the expiry of two years of joining his service’ obviously, the aforesaid bar would apply to a civil servant or for that matter, in the instant case to the appellant, herein, and not to the Government or respondents Nos.4 and 5 to question the correctness of the age of the appellant which was entered in his service record. Muhammad Din Kausar v. AJ&K Govt. & 4 others 2002 SCR 236 (C)
Correction of — forum for — jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal — writ not maintainable — according to the enunciated principle of law, in such like matters exclusive jurisdiction lies with the Service Tribunal, hence, exercise of writ jurisdiction is not a proper course. Secretary Services & others v. Bashir Mir 2015 SCR 851 (D) 2015 SCMR 456
For correction/alteration — jurisdiction of — the Service Tribunal — In view of the principle of law enunciated by the apex Courts of the State and Pakistan, it hardly requires any further deliberation that the issue of alteration /correction of date of birth of a civil servant can only be properly raised before the Service Tribunal and not before any other forum Secretary Services & others v. Bashir Mir 2015 SCR 851 (G)
Correction — availing of remedy — stage of — at earliest after wrong entry in service record — the matter of correction of date of birth has also to be raised at proper stage as early as possible from the date of entries of date of birth in the service record and the same cannot be allowed to be raised at the verge of retirement. Secretary Services & others v. Bashir Mir 2015 SCR 851 (H)
—Correction in date of birth in service record as mentioned in the matriculation certificate— The claim of civil servant is that his date of birth was wrongly entered as 4.8.1955 in the service record. At the time of joining the service, the department has got his signature on the blank paper, which was later on filled up and kept secret, whereas, his actual date of birth is 13.06.1956 as mentioned in the matriculation certificate and Computerized National Identity Card—Held: The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that at the time of joining the service, the department has got signature on a blank paper does not appeal to a prudent mind, he failed to substantiate that he ever challenged the entry made in the service record. During the whole service, he never approached any competent forum but after attaining the age of superannuation, he has taken the stance that his actual date of birth is 13.06.1956. He has heavily relied upon the matriculation certificate which he obtained in the year 1983, whereas, he joined his service on 04.08.1973, i.e., after about 10 years’ of his service. Further held: the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate cannot be given preference over the service record. D.G Anticorruption & others v. Abdul Qayam & another 2017 SCR 507 (A)
— Correction in date of birth at the time of retirement— The contention of the learned counsel for respondent that he was not aware of the date of birth entered in the service record, has no force and is ill-founded, which cannot be taken into consideration. If for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that his date of birth was not correctly entered in the service record then the proper course was to agitate the mater at the proper forum for correction of entry of his date of birth in the service record. The same cannot be allowed to be raised at the time of retirement. D.G Anticorruption & others v. Abdul Qayam & another 2017 SCR 507 (B) 2015 SCR 1083 & 2012 SCR 23 rel.
—Determination of—CNIC— CNIC is a document which demonstrates the identity of a person holding it and also bears the date of birth— CNIC has never ever been given due preference for the purpose of determination of age— CNIC is not the conclusive proof of the age rather simply it is for the purpose of identification and nothing beyond. Khawaja Aamir Ahmed Versus Azad Govt. & 6 others 2021 SCR 58 (B) 1988 PLC 135 ref.
— Determination of age—salary slip—a computer generated document—only serves as a proof of salary—it would be childish to believe that the salary/payslip can be considered a conclusive proof of date of birth which is mentioned causally. Khawaja Aamir Ahmed Versus Azad Govt. & 6 others 2021 SCR 58 (C)
—General Financial Rules—Rule 116—age—determination of–Matriculation Certificate is the basic document from which all the other relevant documents emanate—the entry regarding the age, for the first time, is made in the Matriculation Certificate which is relied upon by everybody— it is requirement of law that every person at the time of appointment should declare the date of birth with as far as possible confirmatory documentary evidence such as Matriculation Certificate. Khawaja Aamir Ahmed Versus Azad Govt. & 6 others 2021 SCR 58 (D)
—Age—determination of—requisite proof—due credence will be given to the Matriculation Certificate—all the subsequent documents including CNIC, salary slips etc., cannot override the entry of date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate unless corrected by the Education Board under relevant law. Khawaja Aamir Ahmed Versus Azad Govt. & 6 others 2021 SCR 58 (I&J)