WP(C)/5150/2022 of MRS. RENU DEKA DAS Vs THE INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND 4 ORS. on 10 February 2026

ORDER

Date : 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Parbin, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 & 2, Ms. M.D Borah, learned Standing counsel for the Co-operation department and Mr. R.B Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 & 4. Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no administrator appointed by the RBI Guwahati and therefore, the presence of the respondent No. 5 in this petition would not be necessary. The claim in this writ petition is to the pending salary and other retirement benefits amounting to Rs. 4,62,578/- to the petitioner along with interest 12% p.a since superannuated till actual realization. The case of the petitioner is that she was a permanent employee of the respondent bank and she was appointed on 12.06.1989 and she retired on 28.02.2018 from the post of Office Assistant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the salary of the petitioner had been paid intermittently for a few years prior to the petitioner date of superannuation. Several representation had been filed by the writ petitioner praying for benefits. The tabular form of pending salary and benefits which the petitioner claims is at paragraph-3 of the writ petition and the same is reproduced for a ready reference; Sl. No. Months and year Amount of Salaries and other benefits yet to be paid

Non-payment of salary March, 2016

Rs.57,902/-

10 days salary not paid for the month of October, 2017

Rs.19,300/-

12 days salary not paid for the month of February, 2018

Rs.23,160/-

Non-payment of leave encashment benefit for 8 months (As payable on retirement)

Rs.4,62,216/-

Total arrear payment left to be paid to the petitioner

Rs.5,62,578/-

The petitioner had thereafter approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati where, after admitting the claim of the petitioner, the bank had paid Rs. 1 lakh only to the petitioner on 11.10.2019 and a representation was made by the bank that since the bank was incurring financial loss therefore, the rest of the amount shall be paid to the petitioner in the next year. However, no such amount was paid. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 1080/2022 which was withdrawn to file afresh. The said liberty was granted. The petitioner is before this Court with the prayer as follows;

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of 'Mandamus' to to directing the Respondent bank to release all pending Salary and other retirement benefits amounting Rs.5,62,578/-to the petitioner along with an interest @ 12% PA since Superannuation till the actual realization; And in the interim, pending disposal of the instant case:

(ii) The Respondent bank, may be directed to pay at least 50% of the total dues to the Petitioner which comes to Rs.2,81,289/-; and may pass such other order as your Lordship may deem fit and proper. The respondent bank has filed affidavit-in-opposition, where the claim of the petitioner to be entitled to emolument as reflected in the table had not been denied and it was rather admitted that a sum of Rs. 1 lakh had been paid. The affidavit-in-opposition however has asserted that the correct approach would have the Labour Court under section 32(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for recovery of her pending dues. An attempt has been made to project before this Court that the respondent bank is not “State” as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore the respondent bank would not be amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. Responding to the aforesaid submission regarding the maintainability to the writ petition of this Court, Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Janet Jeyapaul -versus- SRM University & Others, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 530, where the Apex Court had held that when an organisation discharges public duties, an aggrieved party can seek a public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that particular case, the respondent was a university and the dispute was between the employer and the employees regarding the termination of service. Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, by drawing a line from the aforesaid case, that since the dispute in this case is regarding payment of undisputed emoluments which had accumulated to the petitioner before superannuation and even after superannuation as pensionary benefits, the respondent bank would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the 23.06.2017 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 2193/2017 where the same respondent bank was involved in the matter of a disciplinary proceedings with regard to the petitioner therein and where this Court had entertained the writ petition on merits. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having duly considered the judgment placed before this Court by the learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that when the amounts claimed by the petitioner remains undisputed by the respondent authorities, the respondent authorities would be liable to be pay the aforesaid amounts to the petitioner. It is noticed that the petitioner had retired in the year 2018 and she had approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner before whom the respondent bank had admitted the amount to be paid and had actually paid Rs. 1 lakh by promising the rest of the amount by next year. The attempt of the respondents after filing the affidavit-in-opposition appears to be more to resist the litigation than to justify the non payment to the writ petitioner. In the aforesaid facts and the aforesaid peculiar circumstances of the case, this Court directs the respondent No. 1 & 2 to take immediate steps for disbursement of the undisputed amount of Rs. 4,62,578/- to the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is accordingly disposed. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant