IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.507 OF 2020.  
(Against the judgment dated 30.08.2019 
passed by the Balochistan Service Tribunal, 
Quetta in Service Appeal No.611 of 2018).  
 
Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan, 
Quetta and others. 
 
 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
Versus 
Asmatullah Kakar. 
 
 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. Arbab Muhammad Tahir,  
A. G. Balochistan. 
(via video link from Quetta) 
Mr. Ayaz Khan Swati, Addl. A. G. 
Balochistan (from Islamabad) 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Mr. M. Akram Shah, ASC. 
 
(via video link from Quetta) 
 
(appeared without filing of enter appearance) 
 
 
Date of Hearing:  
 
18.08.2020. 
 
  
 JUDGMENT  
 
 
 
IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.- The Appellants challenged 
the judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal, Quetta 
dated 30.08.2019. Through the impugned judgment, a 
notification dated 18.10.2018 and letter dated 12.12.2018 
issued by the Secretary S&GAD, Government of Balochistan 
to the extent of retirement of the Respondent was set aside 
with the result that date of birth of the Respondent was 
accepted as 25.12.1961 instead of 08.01.1959. The later date 
was recorded in the relevant service records of Respondent.   
CIVIL APPEALS NO.507 & 604 OF 2020. 
2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the 
Respondent claimed that he was born on 25.12.1961 in 
Kuchlak District, Quetta. However, at the time of joining 
service, his date of birth was mentioned as 08.01.1959. He 
claimed that his date of birth was not correctly mentioned in 
his service record. Therefore, in order to insert his correct 
date of birth in his service and other relevant records he filed 
an application with department. On the refusal of the 
department to do so, he filed a suit of declaration and 
permanent injunction before the Civil Court. In the said suit, 
he 
impleaded 
Chairman, 
Board 
of 
Intermediate 
and 
Secondary Education, Balochistan and the Headmaster of 
Government High School, Kuchlak. The suit was decreed 
because neither party seriously contested it and the evidence 
produced by the Respondent remained un-rebutted. Through 
the said judgment and decree it was declared that the correct 
date of birth of Respondent No.1 was 25.12.1961. The Court 
directed the Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary 
Education, Balochistan and the Headmaster, Government 
High School, Kuchlak to correct the record by entering the 
date of birth of the Respondent as 25.12.1961 instead of 
08.01.1959. It appears that on the basis of the said decree, 
the Respondent got his secondary school certificate changed 
to reflect his corrected date of birth. He also got the school 
record amended on the basis of the judgment and decree 
dated 07.09.1989. Interestingly enough, he appears to have 
moved an application with the Secretary, Services and 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.507 & 604 OF 2020. 
3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
General 
Administration 
Department, 
Government 
of 
Balochistan seeking correction of his date of birth. Vide order 
dated 07.04.1991, the application was rejected by the 
competent authority on the ground that the relevant rules did 
not allow alteration in the date of birth once recorded on the 
basis of matriculation certificate. The Respondent did not 
agitate the matter any further till notification dated 
18.10.2018 was issued by the Secretary, Services and 
General Administration Department, Quetta on the basis of 
which the Respondent was retired having attained the age of 
superannuation with effect from 07.01.2019. The date of 
superannuation was calculated on the basis of date of birth 
being 08.01.1959 as was originally recorded in his service 
record.  
 
3. 
 
The Respondent made a fresh representation 
before the Secretary, Services and General Administration 
Department for correction of his date of birth and hence 
extension of his services for a period more than two years. 
This request was again declined. The Respondent No.1 
therefore approached the Balochistan Service Tribunal with a 
service appeal. This appeal was allowed by the Tribunal 
through the impugned judgment.  
 
4. 
 
Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 
08.05.2020 in the following terms:    
 
 
 
“The learned Advocate General, Balochistan contends 
that the Respondent was employed in 1984. In the 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.507 & 604 OF 2020. 
4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
year 1991, he had applied for change of his date of 
birth, which was rejected vide order dated 07.04.1991 
that was accepted by the Respondent, as he did not 
challenge the same further rather in the year 2018 
when he was at the verge of retirement he filed a 
service 
appeal 
before 
the 
Balochistan 
Service 
Tribunal. This appeal was hopelessly time barred and 
was not maintainable. He submits that once the date 
of birth is recorded in service record at the time of 
joining Government service, the same could not be 
changed as per settled law more particularly, in terms 
of Section 11 of the Balochistan Civil Servants 
(Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009.  
 
2. 
The learned Law Officer has further contended 
that the Respondent had filed a suit in the year 1989 
for correction of his date of birth in which he managed 
to obtain an ex-parte decree dated 07.08.1989. He 
contends 
that 
as 
the 
petitioners-Respondent 
department were not party in the said suit, therefore, 
the judgment passed therein has no binding effect on 
the petitioners. He adds that even otherwise the said 
judgment obtained by the petitioner was altogether 
illegal, as such the same has not been approved by 
the superior Courts. In support of his contentions the 
learned Law Officer has relied upon judgments of this 
Court reported as Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of 
Sindh (2015 SCMR 456) and Muhammad Aslam 
Baloch v. Government of Balochistan (2014 SCMR 
1723). 
 
  
3. 
The 
submissions 
made 
by 
the 
learned 
Advocate General Balochistan need consideration. 
Leave to appeal is therefore granted to consider inter 
alia the same. Appeal stage paper books be prepared 
on the available record. However, the parties are at 
liberty to file additional documents, if any within a 
period of one month. As the matter relates to service, 
the Office is directed to fix the same for hearing in 
Court expeditiously, preferably after three months.  
 
4. 
In the meantime, operation of the impugned 
judgment dated 30.08.2019 shall remain suspended.”  
CIVIL APPEALS NO.507 & 604 OF 2020. 
5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. 
 
The learned Advocate General, Balochistan has 
argued that the Balochistan Service Tribunal failed to take 
into consideration the fact that the actual date of birth of 
Respondent No.1 was 08.01.1959 which was mentioned by 
him in his forms filed before the Balochistan Public Service 
Commission. The form is in his own handwriting. Further, the 
date of birth mentioned in the form was also mentioned in the 
matriculation certificate which was made part of the service 
record of the Respondent. He submits that the Balochistan 
Service Tribunal failed to notice that the question of change of 
date of birth had been agitated even earlier in 1981 when the 
Respondent filed an application for correction of his date of 
birth after obtaining a decree of the Court. However, such 
application was rejected. The Respondent did not agitate the 
matter any further and remained silent till 2018 when the 
notification for his retirement was issued. On issuance of the 
notification, he filed a fresh application, the same was 
rejected and he used such rejection as a cause of action to file 
a service appeal which was patently barred by time and 
without cause of action. He further maintains that his silence 
of over 20 years operates as an estoppel and the Respondent 
was barred from approaching the Balochistan Service 
Tribunal.  
 
6. 
 
The learned Advocate General, Balochistan further 
submits that the Balochistan Service Tribunal failed to notice 
or consider the impact of Rule 3(6) of the Balochistan 
Government Initial Appointment to the Civil Service post (age 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.507 & 604 OF 2020. 
6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and relaxation of upper age limit) Rules, 2012 which provides 
that the date of birth of a civil servant once recorded at the 
time of joining Government service shall be final and no 
alteration therein shall be permissible except where a clerical  
mistake occurs in recording the date of birth  in the service 
record. The learned Advocate General further maintains that 
the Balochistan Service Tribunal has failed to take into 
consideration the dictum of this Court in respect of change of 
date of birth under the provision of Rule 12-A of the Civil 
Servants (Appointments, Promotions and Transfers) Rules, 
1973 as well as the ratio of the law laid down in various 
judgments of this Court including Qamaruddin. v. Pakistan 
through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 
another (2007 SCMR 66), Dr. Muhammad Aslam Baloch v. 
Government 
of 
Balochistan 
through 
Secretary, 
Health 
Department and others (2014 SCMR 1723), Ali Azhar Khan 
Baloch and others v. Province of Sindh and others (2015 
SCMR 456) and Dr. Zulfiqat Ahmed Malik v. Federation of 
Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division, Chairman FBR, 
Islamabad and others (2019 SCMR 1973). 
 
7. 
 
The learned counsel for the Respondent, on the 
other hand, has defended the impugned judgment. He has 
vehemently argued that the date of birth of the Respondent 
was wrongly recorded in the forms of the Public Service 
Commission as well as his matriculation certificate. He had 
accordingly approached a Court of competent jurisdiction and 
got his correct date of birth declared through a declaratory 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.507 & 604 OF 2020. 
7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
decree. Such decree has remained unchallenged and the 
Government of Balochistan had no option except to 
implement the judgment and decree which had attained 
finality. He further maintains that in a number of subsequent 
ACRs which also constitute a part of his service record, his 
correct date of birth i.e. 25.12.1961 has been recorded. He 
therefore maintains that the Government of Balochistan has 
acquiesced in the matter, the judgment and decree have 
attained finality and the Balochistan Service Tribunal was 
within its powers and legally justified in implementing the 
judgment of the Additional District Judge-II, Quetta dated 
07.09.1989.  
 
8. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties 
and carefully examined the record.  
 
9. 
 
It is clear and obvious to us that before joining 
service the Respondent filed an application form in order to 
sit for the civil service examination. In the said form which 
the Respondent filled in his own hand and was duly signed by 
him, he mentioned his date of birth as 08.01.1959. The form 
was accompanied by his Secondary school certificate which 
also reflected the same date of birth. Likewise, the same date 
of birth was entered in his service record from the day he 
joined service and was not changed within the timeframe 
provided by law. It is by now well settled that date of birth of 
a civil servant once recorded in his service book and other 
service record at the time of his entry into the Government 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.507 & 604 OF 2020. 
8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
service cannot be changed, except where an error occurred in 
recording the correct date of birth on account of a clerical 
error.  
 
10. 
 
Further, all relevant service rules including the 
Rule 3(6) of the Balochistan Government Initial Appointment 
to the Civil Service post (age and relaxation of upper age limit) 
Rules, 2012 as well as the Civil Servants (Appointments, 
Promotions and Transfers) Rules, 1973 are clear and 
categorical in this respect and deviation from the same is 
neither 
permissible 
nor 
desirable. 
We 
find 
that 
the 
Balochistan Service Tribunal altogether ignored the rules for 
reasons best known to it.  
 
11. 
 
We also note that the Respondent filed a 
declaratory suit in 1988 and obtained a judgment and decree 
dated 07.09.1989. It is however significant to note that he 
only impleaded Chairman, Board of Intermediate and 
Secondary 
Education, 
Balochistan 
Quetta 
and 
the 
Headmaster, Government High School, Kuchlak in his suit. 
He did not implead his employer namely, the Government of 
Balochistan which was the most material and necessary party 
in the suit in question. Further, armed with the said 
judgment and decree, he filed an application for alteration in 
his date of birth which was rightly declined vide letter dated 
07.04.1991 issued by the Government of Balochistan, 
Services and General Administration Department. He did not 
agitate this matter any further which became past and closed 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.507 & 604 OF 2020. 
9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
transaction. Thereafter, the Respondent kept quiet for the 
next 17 years. It was only on the eve of his retirement when 
the notification for his retirement was issued, that he moved 
an application agitating the matter again knowing that the 
request had already been declined in 1991, and thereafter 
filed the service appeal. This in our opinion was a malafide 
and seemingly clever attempt to hoodwink the system and 
extend his date of retirement by a few years.  
 
12. 
 
The argument of the learned counsel for the 
Respondent that Government of Balochistan did not challenge 
the judgment and decree which had attained finality and it 
was bound to implement it is misconceived and without 
substance. In the first place, even the maintainability of the 
suit was questionable on account of clear and elaborate rules 
available in the Service Rules. Further, the Government of 
Balochistan which was a necessary party was not impleaded 
and the judgment in question was neither binding nor 
executable against the Government of Balochistan. We also 
find that the service appeal filed by the Respondent was 
patently barred by time and the said fact unfortunately 
escaped the notice of the Balochistan Service Tribunal. We 
also find it surprising that the Balochistan Service Tribunal 
not only ignored and failed to take notice of clear and 
unambiguous service rules including the Rule 3(6) of the 
Balochistan Government Initial Appointment to the Civil 
Service post (age and relaxation of upper age limit) Rules, 
2012 but also the provisions of the Balochistan Civil Servants 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.507 & 604 OF 2020. 
10
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Appointments, Promotions and Transfers) Rules, 1973. Most 
significantly the Tribunal totally failed to consider, appreciate 
and follow the dicta of this Court recorded in Qamaruddin. v. 
Pakistan 
through 
Secretary, 
Establishment 
Division, 
Islamabad and another, Dr. Muhammad Aslam Baloch v. 
Government 
of 
Balochistan 
through 
Secretary, 
Health 
Department and others, Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others v. 
Province of Sindh and others and Dr. Zulfiqat Ahmed Malik v. 
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division, 
Chairman FBR, Islamabad and others (supra) where it has 
repeatedly been held that the date of birth once recorded in 
the service record of a civil servant cannot be altered or 
changed except in accordance with the exceptions provided in 
the rules itself. It was never the case of the Respondent that 
his case fell within any of the exceptions or that his date of 
birth was wrongly recorded on account of a clerical error.  
 
13. 
 
The Balochistan Service Tribunal also failed to 
take notice into consideration that in the year 1991 the 
competent authority had already rejected the representation 
of the Respondent and the Respondent had remained silent 
for 18 years before agitating the matter before the Balochistan 
Service Tribunal. The Balochistan Service Tribunal did not 
consider it necessary to record any reasons for entertaining 
the service appeal, condoning the delay, ignoring the clear, 
unambiguous and unequivocal language of the rules and 
consistent dicta on the question of law settled by this Court 
in the various judgments cited above. It may be noted that in 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.507 & 604 OF 2020. 
11
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
terms of Article 189 of the Constitution of the Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, any decision of this Court to the 
extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or 
enunciates a principle of law is binding on all other Courts in 
Pakistan. On this yardstick, the judgment of the Tribunal is 
per incuriam.   
 
14. 
 
For reasons recorded above, we allow this appeal. 
We find the judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal, 
Quetta 
dated 
30.08.2019 
to 
be 
unsustainable. 
It 
is 
accordingly set aside.  
 
15. 
 
The Registrar shall communicate a copy of this 
judgment to the Balochistan Service Tribunal, Quetta.     
 
  
 
Chief Justice  
 
Judge  
 
Judge 
ISLAMABAD.  
18.08.2020. 
Zubair/* 
‘Not Approved For Reporting’ 
