S.K. Sen, J. - (1.)In this writ petition it has been assigned that the petitioner's service Record was manipulated by changing the date of birth behind his back. It is the further case of the petitioner that date of birth could not have been changed by the Government in violation of the Government Order dated 28th July, 1956 published in Calcutta police Gazette dated 6th August. 1956. After hearing the respective submissions of the parties an order was passed by this Court on 15th February, 1989, inter alia, to the following effect:
I have considered the respective submissions of the parties. It appears to me that this is a fit case where the petitioner should be given an opportunity of hearing to operate his grievances. Since the commissioner of police has already made a finding on the representation of the petitioner without hearing him, in my opinion, that finding should be quoted and set aside. The petitioner should be given a fresh hearing by the Secretary, Home Department, treating the writ petition of the petitioner as his representation. Such representation of the petitioner should be disposed of by the Home Secretary after hearing the parties within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. Both the parties will be entitled to produce such documents before the Home Secretary as they may be advised. the respondents are directed to release the provident fund amount of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of communication of this order.

All parties to action a signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.

(2.)The Home Secretary, thereafter, heard the petitioner and came to the finding that the date of birth as recorded in the matriculation Certificate should be accepted on the basis of which the petitioner's date of birth as recorded by the Government as 1st March, 1918, stands accepted. The petitioner does not really challenge the decision of the Home Secretary in that respect. It is the case of the petitioner that his retired benefits including the dues on account of General Provident Fund, Gratuity and Pension have been wrongly withheld. It is the contention of the State government on the other hand that the petitioner has been wrongfully occupying the government quarter allotted to him. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Government is not entitled in law to deduct the pension, gratuity or other benefits of its employee in any manner.
(3.)It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the State government is not entitled to withhold retrial benefits of the petitioner and such deduction is illegal. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that by not taking any step during the long years they have the petitioner from finding any alternative accommodation for his own. Had the retrial benefits been released immediately after expiry of two months from the date of his retirement. Petitioner could invest a large sum of money in Bank in the fixed deposit scheme and could enjoy interest at the current market rate.
;