The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16837 of 2022 The Sambalpur District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. …. Pradip Kumar Meher and Others …. -versus- Petitioner Mr. B. Sahoo, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. N. Biswal, Advocate for private Opp. Party No.1 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 19.08.2025 Order No. 08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging an order passed by the Appellate Authority- O.P. No.3 under the Payment of Gratuity Act (in short Act) vide order dated 10.06.2022 under Annexure-9 and the initial order passed by the Controlling Authority-O.P. No.2 vide order dated 31.12.2021 under Annexure-7. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Bank contended that since private Opp. Party No.1 is involved in series of mis-appropriation and a Departmental Proceeding is pending against him vide // 2 // Annexure-3 and so also a Vigilance Proceeding after his retirement from service, when gratuity amount was not released, O.P. No.1 moved the Controlling Authority- O.P. No.2 claiming release of the gratuity amount in his favour. 4.1. It is contended that even though the Controlling Authority was duly intimated by the Bank while filing the written statement, regarding involvement of the Opp. Party No.1 in the alleged mis-appropriation and pendency of the Departmental Proceeding as well as the Vigilance Proceeding, but without proper appreciation of the stand taken by the Bank under Annexure-6, the proceeding was disposed of by O.P. No.2 in P.G. Case No.2 of 2020 under Annexure-7, in directing the petitioner-Bank to pay gratuity amount of Rs.9,97,235/- in favour of the Opp. Party No.1. 4.2. It is contended that challenging such order passed by the Controlling Authority-O.P. No.2 under Annexure-7, petitioner-Bank though moved the Appellate Authority-O.P. No.3 and also deposited the awarded gratuity amount vide Annexure-8, but without proper appreciation of the grounds taken in the appeal and the fact that the Opp. Party No.1 is facing both Departmental and Vigilance Proceeding, the Appellate Authority-O.P. No.3 rejected the appeal vide order dated 10.06.2022 under Annexure-9. Page 2 of 6 // 3 // 4.3. It is contended that since the private Opp. Party is involved in series of mis-appropriation and both Departmental and Vigilance Proceeding are pending against him, the said fact should have been taken into consideration while allowing the prayer of the Opp. Party No.1 vide order under Annexure-7, so confirmed in Appeal vide order under Annexure-9. It is also contended that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 20.07.2022, 50% of the amount so deposited by the Bank under Annexure-8, has already been released in favour of the Opp. Party. 5. Mr. N. Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No.1, on the other hand contended that the Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner with the following charges:- “1. Willful insubordination and disobedience of order of the authority. 2. Habitual neglect of work and gross negligence. 3. Doing work prejudicial to the interest of the Bank.” 5.1. It is contended that in aforesaid proceeding there is no charge with regard to any mis-appropriation. It is also contended that in the Vigilance Proceeding so initiated, no charge-sheet has been filed as yet and accordingly it cannot be held that such a proceeding is pending against Opp. Party No.1 in the eye of law. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that since Opp. Party No.1 while continuing in service retied on 30.06.2018 Page 3 of 6 // 4 // and his gratuity amount was not released, he moved the Controlling Authority-O.P. No.2 by filing appropriate application. The Controlling Authority-O.P. No.2 in P.G. Case No.2 of 2020, allowed the claim by directing the petitioner-Bank to pay a sum of Rs.9,97,235/- vide order under Annexure-7. 5.3. Even though the Bank preferred an appeal but the Appellate Authority-O.P. No.3 confirmed the order passed by the Controlling Authority vide order under Annexure-9. However, it is not disputed that basing on the interim order passed by this Court on 20.07.2022, Opp. Party No.1 has received 50% of the gratuity amount so awarded and rest 50% is lying in the account of the Controlling Authority-O.P. No.2. 5.4. It is contended that since in the proceeding initiated against Opp. Party No.1, there is no charge regarding mis-appropriation and in the Vigilance Proceeding charge-sheet has not yet been filed, withholding of the gratuity amount by the petitioner- bank is not just and proper and the same has been rightly allowed vide order under Annexure-7, further confirmed vide order under Annexure-9. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the Opp. Party No.1 while continuing in the Bank, retired from his services on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018. After such retirement, Page 4 of 6 // 5 // claiming release of the gratuity amount as due and admissible, O.P. No.1 moved the Controlling Authority- O.P. No.2 by filing P.G. Case No.2 of 2020. 6.1. Such application when was allowed with a direction on the petitioner-Bank to pay a sum of Rs.9,97,235/- vide order dtd.31.12.2021 under Annexure-7, petitioner-Bank challenging the same, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority-O.P. No.3. Appellate Authority however dismissed the appeal vide order dated 10.06.2022 under Annexure-9. 6.2. This Court after going through the materials available on record, finds that in the departmental proceeding so initiated against the Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-3, there is charge regarding any mis- appropriation. No document is also in the record showing that in the Vigilance Proceeding, Opp. Party No.1 has been charge-sheeted. In absence of any such materials, this Court is of the view that the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have rightly allowed the claim of the private Opp. Party vide order under Annexure-7, so confirmed vide order under Annexure-9. 6.3. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with order passed by O.P. No.2 under Annexure-7 and confirmed by O.P. No.3 vide order under Annexure-9. Page 5 of 6 // 6 // 6.4. While not interfering with the order at Annexure-7 and 9, this Court direct Opp. Party No.2 to release the balance 50% gratuity amount in favour of Opp. Party No.1 within a period of 4 (four) weeks hence. However, such release of the entire gratuity amount, will be subject to final outcome of the Vigilance Proceeding. 7.
Decision
The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Aug-2025 11:42:36 Page 6 of 6