Orissa High Court
WA/88/2026 of MANAGING DIRECTOR, ODISHA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KHORDHA Vs MANAGOBINDA BARIK on 29 June 2026
of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.88 of 2026 Managing Director, Odisha State Cooperative Bank Ltd. …. Appellant Mr. Kali Prasad Nanda, Advocate -versus- Sri Managobinda Barik and others …. Respondents Mr. Pradipta Kishore Bhuyan, Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA No.88 of 2026
Managing Director, Odisha State
Cooperative Bank Ltd.
….
Appellant
Mr. Kali Prasad Nanda, Advocate
-versus-
Sri Managobinda Barik and others
….
Respondents
Mr. Pradipta Kishore Bhuyan, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
29.06.2026
04.
1. The appellant appears to have beleaguered between the findings of the Single Bench on merit of the case and the imposition of cost while deciding the writ petition.
2. At one point of time, it is sought to be contended before this Court that since respondent no.1-employee was found to have indulged in sanctioning the loan and of the benefits under the Scheme, as the case may be, to the person de hors the strict adherence thereof, on the other hand, it is sought to be contended that there is no occasion to impose cost while dismissing the writ petition. In addition to the same, it is contended that imposition of cost would percolate a wrong signal into the employees of the appellant-Bank and, therefore, the Court should interfere with the said judgment.
3. The dispute pertains to withholding and/or non-payment of the gratuity amount despite the express and exhaustive provisions contained under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. At one point of time, it is sought to be contended by the appellant-Bank that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated, but because of the superannuation of respondent no.1-employee, it could not be continued. On the other hand, it is contended that the imposition of cost was unwarranted and, therefore, the judgment needs to be interfered with.
4. So far as the disciplinary proceeding initiated against respondent no.1-employee is concerned, it has not culminated into any penalty nor the appellant-Bank proceeded against respondent no.1-employee after attaining superannuation. Obviously, the continuance of the disciplinary proceeding after the retirement depends upon the nature of the statutory provisions and the allegations so made. The approach was made by respondent no.1- employee to the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and it was found that the decision and/or action of the appellant-Bank is contrary to the provisions of the said Act and withholding of the gratuity is per se erroneous, illegal and not in consonance with the statutory provision, even the statutory appeal did not yield fruitful result in favour of the appellant-Bank. So, the writ petition filed by the appellant-Bank before this Court.
5. The gratuity is not a bounty nor a bonanza to the employees, but it is a resurrection of their services rendered to the organization and paid a deferred salary. Withholding of gratuity without any power having conferred in the statute cannot receive the blessings of the Court and in such event, the employer should be dealt sternly with iron hand. It is a case of denial to pay the gratuity at the time of attaining the superannuation and, therefore, we do not find that either the statutory authorities or the Single Bench under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has committed any error in directing the payment of the gratuity along with interest as compensation but also the imposition of cost of Rs.20,000/-.
6. It is the discretion of the Court to impose the cost and the quantification depends upon the gamut of the dispute and the conduct of the parties in their decision and/or steps to have been taken. Ordinarily, the Court should not interfere with the order imposing cost while exercising the appellate powers unless the same appears to be unwarranted and/or excessive. Merely because certain allegations were made against respondent no.1-employee and the disciplinary proceeding was initiated, but till date respondent no.1-employee has not been found guilty of the same and, therefore, the attempt to defer the payment of gratuity, which is required to be paid on the date of superannuation in terms of the provisions contained in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, such unjust enrichment over the statutory rights invites the imposition of cost as the person by approaching the Court and initiating the litigation should not walk merrily. Conversely, it would tantamount to delay in recognizing and/or extending the benefits and if the Court finds that the same has been done on a flimsy ground not encapsulated by any statutory provision, we do not find any fetter on the part of the Court to impose cost. We would have further imposed a cost as the writ appeal sans merit, but our attention is drawn to the fact that the gratuity amount along with interest has already been paid to respondent no.1-employee.
7. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. As a result of disposal of the writ appeal, all pending Interlocutory Application (s), shall stand disposed of.
(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Digitally Signed Signed by: MANORANJAN SAMAL Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 01-Jul-2026 13:57:18 Signature Not Verified