Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.13419, 10648, 13418, 13420, 14444,14445,14446 & 14447 of 2015 W.P.(C) No. 13419 of 2015 Keonjhar C.C. Bank Ltd. ..... Petitioner Mr.B. Sahoo, Adv. -versus- Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act &Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. D. Patra, Adv. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 13.07.2026 Order No.05 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. Since the present batch of Writ Petitions have been filed against the order passed initially by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, further confirmed by the Appellate Authority, all the matters are heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. 4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Bank that, the private Opp. Parties in the present batch of Writ Petitions while continuing as Cadre Secretary in different Cooperative Societies pursuant to the notification issued by the Govt. in the Co-operation Department on 20.02.2003, they are treated as bank employees with effect from the date of the issue of the order. Page 2 of 5. 4.1. It is contended that such decision taken by the Govt. in the Cooperation Department on 20.02.2003 was accepted by the Petitioner-Bank vide office order dated 03.11.2003 under Annexure-4 and accordingly Petitioners in the present batch of Writ Petitions are treated as bank employees from the date of their joining pursuant to order dated 03.11.2003. 4.2. However, after retirement of the private Opp. Parties while continuing under the bank, they raised claim to get the benefit of gratuity for the entire period of service rendered under the society as well as under the bank, and the same was allowed by the Controlling Authority without proper appreciation of the stand taken by the Petitioner-Bank that the private Opp. Party in each of the cases were treated as bank employees with effect from the notification dated 20.02.2003 of the Cooperation Department so accepted by the Bank vide order dated 03.11.2003. 4.3. It is vehemently contended that since the private Opp. Parties in each of the Writ Petition became bank employees with effect from the date of joining in the bank pursuant to order dated 03.11.2003, their entire period of service cannot be taken as employment under the Bank and accordingly the Bank could not have been directed to pay the gratuity amount for the entire period of service rendered by each of the private opp. Party in the present batch of Writ Petitions. 4.4. It is also contended that in each of the Writ Petition, the award amount so passed by the Controlling Authority has been deposited by the Petitioner-Bank before the Controlling Authority, while preferring appeal against such order of the Controlling Authority. It Page 3 of 5. is accordingly contended that since the private Opp. Party in each of the Writ Petition became bank employee pursuant to order dated 03.11.2003 and such a stand was taken before the Controlling Authority, the Controlling Authority on the face of such stand of the Petitioner-Bank could not have held the bank liable to pay the gratuity for the entire period of service of the private Opp. Party. Not only that the appellate authority also without proper appreciation, confirmed the order passed by the Controlling Authority, while rejecting the appeal. 4.5. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned order passed by the Controlling Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority in each of the Writ Petitions, requires interference of this Court. 5. Mr. P. Khandelwal, learned counsel appearing for the private Opp. Party in each of the cases while supporting the impugned order contended that since the private Opp. Party in each of the cases while continuing in various cooperative societies, were treated as bank employees pursuant to the notification issued by the Govt. in Coopeation Department on 20.03.2003 and order issued by the Bank on 03.11.2003, and while continuing under the Bank, they retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, the Petitioner-Bank is liable to pay the gratuity as due and admissible for the entire period of service rendered by the private Opp. Parties before the concerned Society/Societies and the Petitioner-Bank. 5.1. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity has been committed either by the Controlling Authority or by the Page 4 of 5. Appellate Authority in holding the entitlement of the private Opp. Party to get the gratuity amount. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds and which is not disputed the private Opp. Party in each of the Writ Petition while continuing as Cadre Secretary in different Cooperative Societies were treated as bank employees pursuant to the notification issued by Govt. and Cooperative Dept. On 20.02.2003. In the said notification, it has been clearly held as follows:- “(1) The employees working for the time being under the common Cadre Schemes agianst the Common Cadre or other posts, in the S.C.S./LIMP/FSS, affiliated to the District Central Cooperative Banks and in Head Office and Branches of such banks shall be deemed to be the employees of the respective parent banks, holding duty posts of the said CCBs or on deputation with the affiliated primaries concerned, as the case may be, with effect from the date of issue of this order.” 6.1. Taking into account stipulation contained in the said notification and the consequential order issued by the Petitioner- Bank on 03.11.2003 treating the private Opp. Party as employees of the bank, it is the view of this Court that the Petitioner-Bank could not have been held liable to pay the gratuity amount for the entire period of service rendered by the private Opp. Party in the concerned society and under the Petitioner-Bank. 6.2. Even though such a plea was raised by the Petitioner-Bank before the Controlling Authority but the same as per the considered view of this Court has not been properly appreciated either by the Page 5 of 5. Controlling Authority or the Appellate Authority. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to quash the order passed by the Controlling Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority in each of the Writ petitions. 6.3. While quashing both the orders, this Court remits the matter to the Controlling Authority for fresh adjudication by giving liberty to the private Opp. Party to implead the society as a party to the proceeding. 6.4. The Controlling Authority is directed to take a fresh decision by giving opportunity to the Petitioner-Bank, the private Opp. Party and so also the society, who is to be impleaded as party to the proceeding. 6.5. This Court directs the Controlling Authority to take a fresh decision within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of this order. 6.6. The amount deposited by the Petitioner-Bank before the Controlling Authority be released along with interest, if any, on proper identification in favour of the Petitioner-Bank. 7. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. Photo copy of this order be placed in the connected case records. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Jyoti