Judgment : K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the Tribunal in dismissing her Original Application seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay her a sum of Rs.34,952/- being the difference in gratuity payable under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 2. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is as follows: She was engaged as Casual Labourer from 23.12.1974 and her services were regularised from 01.01.1998 by proceedings No.P.407/I/CN dated 21.03.2002. The petitioner was paid gratuity for the period from 23.12.1974 to 01.01.1981 as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. She retired on 31.01.2010 as a Typist. At the time of retirement, the respondent issued a calculation sheet in which the date of her entry into Government service was wrongly mentioned as 01.01.1982 instead of 01.01.1981. The designation was also wrongly mentioned as Col.Gangman and the date of entry into Government service was also wrongly mentioned as 21.07.1983. The second respondent wrongly calculated the gratuity payable to the petitioner as Rs.1,99,925/- whereas the petitioner is entitled to receive Rs.2,34,877/-. Therefore, the balance amount payable is Rs.34,952/-with interest from the date of her retirement. The petitioner gave a representation on 15.03.2010, asking the Authorities to rectify the mistake. It was followed by another letter on 30.03.2010 sent by R.P.A.D. As no reply was received, she filed G.A.No.3/2010 before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act for recovery of the above said sum of Rs.34,952/-. The said Authority by order dated 04.05.2011 dismissed the application by holding that he has no jurisdiction to decide the same. Consequently, the above original application came to be filed seeking for the relief as stated supra. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though her services were regularised from 01.01.1981, the respondents made a wrong entry in the calculation sheet as 01.01.1982. Therefore, the petitioner contends that if the entry into the regular service is taken as 01.01.1981, she would be entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.34,952/- as the gratuity payable under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 4. It is stated by the respondents in their counter affidavit that the qualifying service has to be worked out by taking into account half of the temporary status. 4. It is stated by the respondents in their counter affidavit that the qualifying service has to be worked out by taking into account half of the temporary status. It is their case that as per the entry in the service register of the petitioner, the date of temporary status was shown as 01.01.1982 and the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show the date of temporary status as 01.01.1981. Therefore, by working out the qualifying service taking into account of the temporary status attained, the gratuity was paid to the petitioner correctly with which the petitioner cannot have any grievance. 5. The Tribunal rejected the petitioner's application only on the reason that the petitioner had not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate her claims that her temporary status had commenced from 01.01.1981. 6. We have heard both sides and perused the materials placed before us. 7. Now before this Court, the petitioner filed a typedset of papers wherein a proceedings shown as Annexure-R-2 with Memorandum No.P.407/I/CN dated 21.03.2002 is placed to indicate that her date of attaining of the temporary status and regular absorption as 01.01.1981. This proceedings was not at all taken into consideration by the Tribunal while rejecting the petitioner's application. For appreciation, the said contents in the document is extracted hereunder: YEARLY REPORT NAME: PREMA BALASUBRAMANIAN Reg: Memorandum No.P407/I/CN/dt.21/3/2002 Sanction is accorded for the payment of Gratuity under payment of Gratuity Act 1972 to Smt.Prema Balasubramanian as detailed below for the Casual labour, service rendered upto the date of absorption date of temporary status as per the option exercised by her interms of Para two of Railway Boards letter No.E(H) 86/A7/GRA/1-2 dt.30.6.2000 for the period mentioned below. S.No. Name & Design. Date of Date of Amount Rec. Engagement Attaining Sanctioned Ty/Status Prema Balasubramanian 23.12.74 1.1.81 Rs.2836 Optain two exercised The Calculation Sheet for working out the amount of gratuity is velted by HA & CAO/CN/Ms Vide Letter No.P483/CN/MS/E fixation dated 13.3.2002. This has the sanction of the competent authority. ***signed SPO/CN/MS Ref. OONCO Typist 44/2001 3050-4590 P65/I/CN 1.4.2001 to 30.6.2001 19/6/2001 Competent Authority ***signed SPO/CN/MS Ref. OONCO Typist 26/2002 3050-4590 dt.4.3.2002 1.7.2001 to 30.6.2002 Competent Authority ***signed SPO/CN/MS 8. In the original application itself at paragraph No.1, the petitioner has stated that her services were regularised from 01.01.1981, as could be seen from the above proceedings dated 21.03.2002. ***signed SPO/CN/MS Ref. OONCO Typist 44/2001 3050-4590 P65/I/CN 1.4.2001 to 30.6.2001 19/6/2001 Competent Authority ***signed SPO/CN/MS Ref. OONCO Typist 26/2002 3050-4590 dt.4.3.2002 1.7.2001 to 30.6.2002 Competent Authority ***signed SPO/CN/MS 8. In the original application itself at paragraph No.1, the petitioner has stated that her services were regularised from 01.01.1981, as could be seen from the above proceedings dated 21.03.2002. If that is the claim made by the petitioner, then it is for the respondents to consider the same and pass fresh orders, based on the above said proceedings. Since the Tribunal has not considered the said aspect and has only dismissed the application only by holding that the petitioner has not placed any materials to show that her date of entry into the regular service was 01.01.1981, we consider it appropriate to set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the matter to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of the balance gratuity amount of Rs.34,952/- by taking note of the Memorandum No.P.407/I/CN dated 21.03.2002, as relied on by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.