Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010061002025 2026:GAU-AS:10957 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1611/2025 ANOWAR HUSSAIN TALUKDAR S/O- LATE RIAZUDDIN TALUKDAR,R/O- VILL- KADMAGURI,P.O- DABALIAPARA,P.S HOWLY,DIST-BARPETA,ASSAM,PIN-781316 VERSUS THE ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT ADAMS PLAZA,G.S ROAD,CHRISTIABASTI,GUWAHATI-781005,REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN 2:THE CHAIRMAN ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK BANK HEAD OFFICE AT ADAMS PLAZA G.S ROAD CHRISTIABASTI GUWAHATI-781005 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK HEAD OFFICE AT ADAMS PLAZA G.S ROAD CHRISTIABASTI GUWAHATI-781005 4:THE REGIONAL MANAGER ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK KOKRAJHAR REGIONAL OFFICE P.O AND TOWN KOKRAJHAR DIST-KOKRAJHAR DIST-KOKRAJHAR(BTAD) ASSAM PIN-78337 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R K SARMA, MS T PARASHAR,MR J DAS,MR. D Page No.# 2/9 CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, A G V B, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 06.08.2026 Heard Mr. R. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Ganguly, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Gramin Bank. [2.] By filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to release the balance gratuity amount of Rs.3,07,460/- which has not been released to him. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as a Manager under the said Bank and he retired on superannuation on 30.06.2018. Apart from other retirement benefits, the amount of gratuity that was entitled to him was calculated to the tune of Rs.15,88,062/- by the respondent Bank themselves. However, out of the said amount, only an aggregate amount of Rs.12,80,602/- was disbursed to him and thereby leaving a balance of Rs.3,07,460/- as the unpaid amount. The petitioner being aggrieved with the same filed this representation before the Chairman of the Bank on 21.08.2018 (Annexure-2) requesting to release of the balance amount. Although some assurance was given to him but since the amount was not Page No.# 3/9 released, the petitioner again submitted his representation before the said authority on 17.04.2024 and thereafter, on 07.02.2025. As his grievance has not been addressed, the petitioner is before this Court through the instant writ petition. [3.] Mr. R. K. Sarma, learned counsel submits that the petitioner submitted an RTI application seeking certain information about as to why the amount has been withheld. In response, the petitioner was informed by the Central Public Information Officer and Head of Department of the Bank on 09.01.2025 that the amount was temporarily realised on bank account on 20.08.2018 and then it was remitted to the Income Tax Department. The nature of liability was a liability pertaining to the Income Tax Department. To the query of the petitioner as to whether prior information/intimation was given to the petitioner or not it was stated that such a communication was not available but intimation of the outstanding demanded by the Income Tax Department was shared with him in his capacity as Branch Manager of Tamarhat Branch. The learned counsel submits that in fact the outstanding amount is the liability of the Bank and the same cannot be the personal outstanding of the petitioner himself which can be seen from the intimation of the outstanding demand given by the Income Tax Department. Therefore, making the petitioner liable to such an outstanding amount is arbitrary and illegal and therefore, a direction be issued to the Page No.# 4/9 respondent to release the amount with interest. [4.] The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not put to notice at any point of time as can be seen from RTI reply and therefore, in absence of any such notice or a proceeding, the deduction of the gratuity amount amounts to deprivation of the petitioner of his right to enjoy the gratuity amount. It is not even a case that proceeding was drawn against the petitioner and the same has been recovered in the form of a penalty. The learned counsel submits that a case of similar nature had come up before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abani Kumar Das Vs. Assam Gramin Vikash Bank and 2 Ors. (WP(C)/9499/2019) and this Court vide order dated 02.04.2024 upon coming to a finding that the petitioner therein was not put to notice of any kind prior to deduction of his leave encashment, held that the said deduction was not tenable in law and accordingly, allowed the writ petition by directing the respondent Bank to release all the retirement dues including the leave encashment arrears without further delay. The learned counsel submits that the said decision is squarely applicable to the present case since the petitioner was clearly not put to notice. He therefore submits that the balance amount of gratuity should be directed to be release to the petitioner along with appropriate interest. [5.] Per-contra, Mr. A. Ganguly, learned Standing Counsel for the Bank submits Page No.# 5/9 that the petitioner may not have been issued notice but he was very much aware about the fact that there was an outstanding amount which remained unpaid. In this connection, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the representation of the petitioner dated 21.08.2018, wherein, the petitioner has stated that the deduction made was on account of delay in submission of TDS statement from the Tamarhat Branch. In this connection the learned Standing Counsel further submits that the Bank has clearly circulated appropriate instructions to all its Branches providing that in case of any penalty being imposed by the competent authority due to wrong/irregular/non-filing of eTDS returns the concerned Head of the Office will be personally responsible for payment of such penalty. Such circular has been issued way back on 06.08.2010 and the petitioner being the Branch Manager of Tamarhat Branch, ought to have known about the said circular and therefore, the deduction made is only justified. [6.] Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel further submits that even the writ petition is belated in view of the fact that the petitioner had retired from service on 30.06.2018 and was released the gratuity amount although not in full soon after his retirement but for reasons best known to him he has approached this Court only in the year 2025. He therefore submits that even on account of delay the writ petition is not maintainable. Page No.# 6/9 [7.] Mr. A. Ganguly also submits that in a matter regarding dispute pertaining to gratuity there is a provision under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 more particularly, Section 7(4) (a) and (b). The same provides for determination of the amount of gratuity and in case of any dispute, the employer is required to deposit the admitted amount before the Controlling Authority and the employer or employee raising the dispute has to make an application to the Controlling Authority for deciding the dispute. Clearly the petitioner has not availed such remedy and therefore the writ petition also would not be maintainable on this ground. [8.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and also have perused the materials available on record. [9.] The issue to be decided as to whether the deduction of the gratuity amount would be permissible on the grounds taken by the respondent Bank. There is no dispute to the fact that the amount of gratuity has been assessed and calculated at Rs.15,88,062/-. The only issue raised by the petitioner is that the entire amount has not been paid and there is a remaining balance of Rs.3,07,460/-. Having regard to the same, it only appears that the provisions of payment of the Gratuity Act as submitted by the learned Standing Counsel of the Bank would not be attracted because the amount payable to the petitioner Page No.# 7/9 is not in dispute but it is the deduction which has been challenged. The petitioner had submitted an RTI application seeking certain information from the Bank and against the query as to whether the petitioner was issued notice or given any intimation about the deduction, the same was answered by stating that there are no documents available to be provided. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was not put to notice prior to such deduction. [10.] Although Mr. A. Ganguly learned Standing Counsel for the Bank has tried to impress upon the Court that the petitioner himself was fully aware about the fact that on account of delay in submission of TDS statement, an amount of Rs.3,07,460/- had been deducted from his retirement benefit of gratuity on 20.08.2018 and therefore, as he was of the knowledge about the said deduction and in view of the circular issued by the competent authority of the Bank on 06.08.2010 which the petitioner is supposed to be well aware of the deduction made is only justified, the said submission although appealing but in the considered view of this Court is not found to be justified on the ground that the knowledge of a person about certain facts by itself cannot take the place of a notice being issued to that person. The purpose of issuing a notice is to put the person on guard and also requiring him to justify as to why any punitive action should not be taken against him for a certain default. In such circumstance, the person who is put to notice would have the opportunity to make a response and Page No.# 8/9 defend himself by whatever means and provision available. [11.] The Assam Gramin Bank also has a service regulation known as the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, wherein, apart from issuance of notice or following of the principles of natural justice, one of the minor penalty is provided therein under Regulation 39(1) (a) (iv) is recovery from emoluments or such other amounts as may be due in whole or in part or any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by negligence or breach of orders. Further, the Regulations of the Bank of the year 2018 (Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 2018) under Regulation 44(2) provides that the gratuity of the employee shall be paid only on conclusion of proceeding or any recoveries to be made from the employee by adjusting the same from the amount of gratuity payable. [12.] However in the instant case no such process is discernable. It is not a fact in dispute that no such proceeding has been drawn against the petitioner and that a notice to this effect has also not been issued. Under the circumstance, this Court is of the considered view that the amount deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner would not be sustainable and accordingly the respondent Bank is therefore directed to pay the petitioner the balance amount which has not been released to him within a period of 4(four) weeks from the Page No.# 9/9 date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount shall carry an interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till the entire amount is paid. [13.] The right of the respondent Bank is however not foreclosed from resorting to recovery as may be permissible in law. With the above observation and direction the writ petition is disposed of. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant