JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to command the respondent authorities to issue the letter of superannuation and to release his entire service benefits.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts relevant for deciding this writ petition is as follows:

The writ petitioner claims to have been initially appointed on temporary basis vide appointment letter dated 10.02.1990 issued by Balageria Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (for short “the Bank”) and was subsequently made permanent. The writ petitioner was transferred from one branch of the Bank to the other and claims to have ultimately joined Deulihat branch on 19.12.2003 and worked there till his superannuation on 28.02.2021. The petitioner alleged that on and from 12.02.2004 he was not allowed to sign the attendance register by the Bank officials.

3. The present grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Bank has neither issued the letter of superannuation nor released his service benefits.

4. Mr. Routh, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner worked at the concerned branch till his superannuation but he was not allowed to sign the attendance register. Mr. Routh contended that the petitioner submitted representation to various authorities from time to time but no steps were taken by such authorities. Mr. Routh, however, drew the attention of this Court to a certificate dated 27.05.2013, issued by the Vice Chairman of the Bank, to prove that the writ petitioner was all along working at the said Branch.

5. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel, for the Bank seriously disputed the submissions of Mr. Routh. He contended that the Vice Chairman did not have the authority to issue such certificate. He contended that the petitioner abandoned his service and therefore he is not entitled to any arrear salary. He further submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. In support of his aforesaid contentions, Mr. Bhattacharya relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Vijay S. Sathaye vs. Indian Airlines Limited and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 253

(ii) Manju Saxena vs. Union of India and Another, (2019) 2 SCC 628

(iii) Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Others, (2013) 12 SCC 179

(iv) State of Kerala and Others vs. A.K. Gopakumar, (2013) 11 SCC 606

(v) Shiv Dass vs. Union of India and Others, (2007) 9 SCC 274

6. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed.

7. After going through the materials placed, this Court finds that the dispute is whether the petitioner worked at the concerned Branch of the Bank after 11.02.2004. The petitioner claims to have submitted representation before various authorities but most of them are not before the appropriate authorities.

8. The sheet anchor of the case of the writ petitioner is the certificate dated 27.05.2013 purported to have been issued by the Vice Chairman. After going through the said certificate, this Court finds that the said certificate was issued on the basis of facts reported to him. Therefore, the Vice Chairman, did not have any personal knowledge of the facts stated in the certificate dated 27.05.2013. Furthermore, the said certificate is silent as to who has reported to him such fact. This Court also fails to understand as to why the Vice Chairman, instead of issuing a direction upon the Branch Manager, Deulihat branch directly, made a request through the said certificate to ensure that the petitioner can continue his service at Deulihat branch. The reason why the petitioner, in spite of having possession of such certificate from the month of May 2013, did not approach this Court immediately thereafter is not clear to this Court. That apart, it is difficult for this Court to accept the argument of Mr. Routh that the petitioner rendered his service for such a long period i.e., from 12.02.2004 till 28.02.2021 without being paid his salaries and other benefits. For all the aforesaid rea