Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. - (1.) PETITIONER impugns the order dated 4.3.1993 (Annexure P -6), whereby he was denied the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 8.4.1990 till 4.3.1993.
(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that date of birth of the petitioner was 8.4.1938 and not 8.4.1930, which was made the basis by the respondent authorities to pass the impugned order. He further submits that the impugned order was illegal on the face of it for the reason that vested right of the petitioner was sought to be taken away. Once the petitioner has served the respondent -Department up to 4.3.1993, he was entitled for the amount of gratuity till the date of his retirement. In support of his contentions, he relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Jearatnam v. The State of Madras, 1967 SLR 657. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned order, by allowing the present writ petition.
(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for the State refers to application dated 15.5.1979 submitted by the petitioner at Annexure R -1, to contend that once the petitioner himself submitted his date of birth as 8.4.1930, his latter affidavit dated 16.11.1987 (Annexure R -3) giving his date of birth as 8.4.1938 was not only false affidavit but it was contrary to his own stand taken earlier. She further submits the respondent authorities could have recovered the amount of salary illegally drawn by the petitioner for the period he was not entitled to continue in service, yet taking a lenient view, no recovery was ordered and he was held not entitled only for the gratuity amount w.e.f. 8.4.1992 to 4.3.1993. Learned counsel for the State concluded by submitting that since the case of the petitioner was based on falsehood and misrepresentation of facts, he was not entitled for any relief and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed with costs.;