Odisha: HC raps State Cooperative Bank for ‘suppression, misconduct and harassment’

Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra terms OSCB’s plea “a waste of judicial time”

Rs 20k cost imposed for tormenting a retiree; lawyer faulted for hiding court rulings

By Our Correspondent

Bhubaneswar, Oct. 29: The Orissa High Court has slammed the Odisha State Cooperative Bank (OSCB) for “deliberate suppression, misconduct and harassment” of a retired employee, dismissing its writ petition and imposing a cost of Rs 20,000.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra said the Bank’s petition against retiree Managobinda Barik was not only baseless but a calculated attempt to mislead the Court and delay payment of lawful dues, despite repeated judicial pronouncements on the issue.

The Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gagan Bihari Prusty vs Paradip Port Trust (SLP (C) No. 4468/2022, decided on March 3, 2025), which upheld 10 per cent interest on delayed gratuity as a statutory and compensatory right. The apex court had ruled that granting less would be “without justification and grossly illegal.”

Yet, OSCB relied on a contrary single-judge order that had erroneously reduced the rate to 6 per cent. Justice Mishra held that ruling as ‘per incuriam’—passed in ignorance of Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the 1987 government notification fixing 10 per cent, and binding precedents of both the Supreme Court and the High Court.

He reaffirmed that 10 per cent simple interest is the only lawful rate, drawing on the Division Bench judgment in M.D., OSCB vs Prafulla Chandra Patnaik (2025 ILR-CUT 1314), which had already settled the issue. That ruling, he noted, had attained finality under Article 141 of the Constitution.

Justice Mishra expressed “shock” that the same advocate who argued for OSCB in the Prafulla Patnaik case, had failed to cite that binding decision in the present matter—an omission the Court termed professional misconduct.

“The Bank has wasted judicial time and caused undue hardship to a retired employee who fought a long battle for his legitimate dues,” the Judge observed, warning that suppression of settled law or re-litigation would attract exemplary costs in future.