Authority: High Court at Calcutta (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 15 Oct 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Birbhum District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors.; Respondents – multiple former employees including Bramha Gopal Roy, Gour Kishore Jar, Anjana Chanda, Chhabi Bhattacharya, Sunil Kumar Dutta, etc.
  • Appeals (MAT 1412, 1414, 1415, 1453, 2067 of 2025 and related CANs) challenge a single‑judge order that directed payment of interest on delayed gratuity, leave encashment and arrear salary.
  • Counsel for appellant: Senior Advocate Saikat Banerjee and Advocates Arnab Ray, Shirsho Banerjee, Shrabanti Chatterjee. Counsel for respondents: Advocate Kishore Mukherjee. State counsel: Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, AGP, and Ms. Tanusree Dhar.
  • Core legal question: Whether employees of a District Central Cooperative Bank can invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to claim statutory interest on delayed service‑related payments.
  • Statutory framework examined: Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 (Section 7), West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules 2011 (Rule 106, Appendix to Chapter V, Clause 19), Cooperative Societies Act 2006 (Sections 134A‑C, 102), and relevant case law – Ram Chandra Choudhary v. Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti (2026 SCC Online SC 583), Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kukar Sharma (2024 16 SCC 598), Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v. State of Maharashtra (2011 2 SCC 782), among others.
  • The Court noted that employees who retired after 1 Feb 2013 are excluded from the ambit of Rule 106; consequently, the cooperative bank is not statutorily bound to pay interest under the Gratuity Act for that class of employees.
  • The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is limited to matters involving a public law element; internal employment disputes of a cooperative credit‑structure entity are governed by the 2006 Act and must be pursued before the Registrar, not via writs.

Final Outcome

  • The appellate court set aside the single‑judge order directing interest on delayed gratuity, leave encashment and arrear salary.
  • It held the writ petitions non‑maintainable because the employees fall outside Rule 106 and the cooperative bank enjoys autonomy under Sections 134A‑C of the 2006 Act.
  • The bank is directed to release the amounts it had deposited pursuant to the impugned order dated 20 April 2026, together with any accrued interest.
  • The parties may raise their claims under the dispute‑resolution mechanism of the 2006 Act or other appropriate remedies; the merits of the claims remain open for determination by the proper forum.
  • The Registrar General of the Calcutta High Court is instructed to issue certified copies of the judgment to the parties upon completion of formalities.

Topics: Writ Jurisdiction, Cooperative Banking