ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI,J. - (1.) The matter relates to not releasing the gratuity amount payable to the petitioner only on the basis of an alleged dispute of wrong recording of date of birth in HRMS Statement by the writ petitioner as well as against deduction of seven months salary by the bank. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that there is no dispute regarding his date of birth as 1st February, 1947 and he is to retire on 31st January, 2007. However, the action on the part of the bank for deduction of seven months salary beyond 31st January, 2007 is not justified. It was also submitted that the gratuity amount which was allegedly forfeited by the bank authority without giving him proper opportunity of hearing and allowing him to file a reply to the impugned show cause issued by the bank authorities, is illegal and arbitrary. It was submitted by Mr. Dutta that in the show cause notice it was pointed out that the writ petitioner had recorded his date of birth as 1st December, 1947 which is incorrect and for this the bank authorities issued show cause notice. In spite of request, the bank authorities have not supplied the copy of that HRMS Statement for which he could not give reply to that. However, there was direction for affidavits. No affidavit was filed and on various dates the matter was taken up for hearing but the bank authorities were not present. Last occasion on January 2, 2012 the Court directed the Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner to serve notice personally on the Regional Manager and others so that the bank authorities can come and make their submissions.
(2.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the bank submits that his actual date of birth is 1st February, 1947. On that basis all calculations are to be made. Since the writ petitioner gave wrong date of birth in the HRMS Statement, all these complications arose and the gratuity amount was forfeited.
(3.) I enquired whether the bank authorities were in any way prejudiced for this or suffered any loss, the Learned Counsel for the Bank submitted that there is nothing on record to show that any prejudice was caused to the bank.;