Orissa High Court
The Orissa State Co-Operative vs Braja Kishore Samanta And Others on 12 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.327 of 2021
The Orissa State Co-operative
Agricultural & Rural Development
Bank Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr. Amiya Kumar Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Braja Kishore Samanta and Others .... Respondents
Mr. Bijaya Kumar Behera-1, Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
Order No. 12.08.2021
02. 1. The challenge in the present appeal by the Orissa State Co-
operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. (OSCARD)
is to a judgment dated 4th March, 2020 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) No.25633 of 2014.
2. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge has disposed of
the writ petition filed by the Respondent No.1 seeking directions to
the present Appellant OSCARD as well as to the Jajpur Co-
operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. (Jajpur
CARD) to release the legitimate dues Of Respondent No.1 together
with interest @ 9% per annum. The prayer was in the context of the
Respondent No.1 having worked at the Jajpur CARD from 30th
May, 1974 till 30th June, 2005, i.e. for 31 long years.
// 2 //
3. The learned Single Judge noted that similar prayers by certain
other employees of other district CARDs had been allowed by the
Single Judge of this Court which orders had been affirmed by the
Division Bench in appeal. It has been noted in para 8 of the
impugned order that the orders passed in W.A. No.364 of 2011
(OSCARD v. Sachindra Harpal) and W.A. No.365 of 2011
(OSCARD v. Sadhuram Naik) had been confirmed by the Supreme
Court of India by disposal of SLP (Civil) No.3259 of 2015.
4. It is seen that in W.A. No.363 of 2011 (OSCARD Bank v.
Keshab Chandra Tripathy and others) the Division Bench had
held, in the facts of that case, that the liability would be that of the
concerned Bolangir CARD Bank and not that of OSCARD.
Nevertheless, the Division Bench observed as follows:
"However, it would be up to the aforesaid two Banks to
act in terms of the working arrangement and on the basis
of relevant records to ensure that the retiral benefits and
other dues, admissible under the law, are released to the
respondent - writ Petitioner at the earliest."
5. Mr. Amiya Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant points out that pursuant to the above order dated 12th
August, 2014 in W.A. No.363 of 2011, it was in fact the Bolangir
CARD that made the payment to Mr. Tripathy and therefore in the
present case also it is the Jajpur CARD which has to make payment
to Respondent No.1 and not OSCARD.
// 3 //
6. What the learned Single Judge has done in the impugned order
dated 4th March, 2020 is to issue a direction similar to the one issued
in W.A. No.363 of 2011, as under:
"9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual position and
decision rendered in W.A. No.363 of 2011 dated 12.08.2014
(OSCARD Bank v. Sri Keshab Chandra Tripathy and
Others) and in W.A. Nos.364 of 2011 and 365 of 2011, the
writ petition is disposed of with direction to Opposite Party
Nos.1 and 3 to act in tandem to see that arrear dues of the
Petitioner are paid with accrued interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of entitlement till its payment within a period
of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order
and failure to comply the direction within the aforesaid
period shall entail interest @ 9% from the date of
entitlement till its actual payment."
7. It would be up to the Appellant to persuade the Jajpur CARD to
issue a similar order of compliance as was done by the Bolangir
CARD in the above case of Mr. Tripathy.
8. It should be noted here that the Respondent No.1 is already 75
years old and has been waiting for his dues for a considerable period
of time. He was constrained to file CONTC No.3774 of 2020 in this
Court when despite the order of the learned Single Judge, the
Appellant did not comply with the directions issued therein. An
order was passed in the said contempt petition on 16th October, 2020
by this Court for compliance. That order was also not complied with
and this led to a Suo-Motu Contempt No.1864 of 2021 in which
notice was issued to the Appellant. It is only thereafter that the
Appellant has woken up and challenged the impugned order.
// 4 //
9. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not persuaded to interfere
with the impugned order of learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
10. It is expected that the Appellant and the Jajpur CARD will not
further delay the compliance of the impugned order of the learned
Single Judge.
11. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K. Panda
