CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Ratika Gaur vs Indian Overseas Bank And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 29 April 2026 · Citation: (2026) 04 UK CK 1766

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pankaj Purohit, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Sexual Harassment Of Women At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition And Redressal) Act, 2013 — Section 11, 13
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition Miscellaneous Single No. 1094 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 349 words

Pankaj Purohit, J

1.

Petitioner, an Assistant Manager Scale-I with the respondent-Indian Overseas Bank Branch at Rishikesh made a complaint of sexual harassment at the work place against respondent nos.3 and 4 (Chief Regional Officer and Chief Manager) of the respondent-Bank.

2.

The contention which was raised by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court on 24.04.2026 was limited to the extent that under Section 11 of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2013"), the Internal Committee shall submit its report (findings) and after submission of the said report (findings) the petitioner shall be provided a copy of the internal report (findings) and shall also be given an opportunity as per Section 11 of the Act of 2013 to make a representation to that internal report (findings), if that is not in favour of the aggrieved person and the aggrieved person shall be given an opportunity of hearing.

3.

It was also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Internal Committee report (findings) was received by the petitioner and to its response she submitted a representation but neither the representation was decided so far nor a report submitted under Section 13 of the Act of 2013.

4.

At this, this Court directed learned counsel for the respondents-Bank to seek instructions in the matter that as to what has happened to the representation of the petitioner.

5.

Today learned counsel for the respondents-Bank has come up with the instructions which are produced before this Court and are taken on record.

6.

According to the instructions received a report under Section 13 of the Act of 2013 has yet not been submitted, consequently the representation submitted by the petitioner is still undecided.

7.

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2- Internal Committee to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of one month from today after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, strictly, in accordance with law.