fflGHCOlTRTDF CHHATTI8GARH AT BKA8PUR PETITIONER RESPONDENT8 WMT PETTTION (S'lNo.7Sof20(« Smt Archana Shanna (Now Smt. Archana Tiwari) WA} Shri ARjun Tiwaii, 38 yeai^ Itto,^ Nivas, B-204 V.I.P. Colony, In fimt ofState Baak, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur(e.G.) . -- VERSUS : 1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakari BaidE. Maryadit, Raipur, C.G. Throu^i Tlffi Man^ngDi c|[M:,,C.^ Rajya Sdikari Bank Maiyadit, 'Iadia Gandhi; C^ommsreial Campus, Paadari 'Raipur (C.G.) ;:. w \ 2. The Registrar, Co-operstive Soeisties, EBiopal * ' ' :. (M.P.) ~ ' ' ,.: :/:.' ...^ 3. The Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, i9iopal,M.P. . ! . '. , ; ','.,, .'L^.'.': WMT PETmON UNDERARTICLE226 OFTHECONSTmjTION OFINDIA 8B: Hun'UA Shri SatfA K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Sbri PrafiiU N. Bharet, Advocate forfhe petitioner. Sliri R.M.Solapiukar, Advocate for llie respondeiit No. 1. ORALORBER (Pa^ed Qn24u 3ay ^ Jaauai^ 2008) Leamed counsel app^ring for the petitionersufanuts fhat the sinularly situated employees of the respondent bank had approaehed fhe Hi^t Ccnirt of Madhya Padesh, Jabalpur mW.P. No. 1421 of 2005. The Higb Court ofMa<Hiya Pradesh, by order dated 19.04.2006 afier having considered, allowedthe applieation intfae foUo'wingterms: "31. Ex-consequenti, we proceed to enumerate ow conclusions in seriatim, as under: (i) The Rule 61 oflhe StaffSelection Rules is utea- vires and unconstitational. (ii) The order dated 4.2,2005 passed bythe Tribuial vide Annexure P4isquashed. (iii) The controversy is rananded to tfae M.P. Cooperative Tribunal for adjudication •wsthregird to the status earaed by the petitioners. (iv) TheM.P. CooperativeTriburiald'taltfinali^'ttie lis vriftin a period of four mofflEhs jfrom the date of order. The Tribunal shall not be influenced by •ttie m 2. •^Sh- factthatthis Court has not directed reiiistatement and invoked fhe concept of post-decisional heariflg. The Tribunal shall independently deeide fhe Us ia question keepiag in viewlfae law inthe field. 32. The vwit petitini is allowed fo fhe extent indicated above. There shall be no ardsrffi to costs." The Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Limited, Bhopal, the respondeirt in tfie said writ petitioa filed a special leave petiMen ia the Supreme Court vdiich; after grant of leave, was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 4481 &f 2007. The Supreme Court, having eonsidered all the aapects passed the following ordere; "31) In li^it offlie above discussioix, we passlhe followmg order: • ' ,, ; : • ' :' ": sil:: • • i) The eonclusion wifh regard to Rule 61 oftiie StaffSeleetion Rulesis not waiTanted andlhe issue is left opea, ii) The decision of the Bank as well as Registrar of the Cooperative Soeieties teraainatmg •ffie services of the employees based ori 1fae report of the Lokayukt eaimot be sustained andthe same is liable t6 be set aside. iu) In view ofthe aboye conclusion- Ifaere is ao need to remand Ifae issue to &e Registrar or aay ofher authorily fcr adjudication wifli regard to the statos eamed by ffaese employees, consequendy thesaid direction ofthe Hi^li Court is also set aside." ; : •-„. : Shri Prafull N. Bharat, counsel appearing jfor the petitioner and Sfari R.M.Solapurkar, counsel appearing for ttie respondent no. l jouttly submit fliat the issue urvolved.in fhis petition is squarelycoveredbythe judement and order dated 25.09.2007 assed by the Supreme Gourt m Civil Appeal No. 4481 of2007, as the re^ondmts in Civil Appeal and ibe petitioaers in tiie present writ petition are similatly situated. The same order which was impugied in the writ petition before tiie Hi^t :f TC Court ofMadhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 142172005, is under challenge in fhe present petition. 4. to view ofthe foregoing, as admitted by leanied counsels appea'ing for 1fae parties, this petition is allowed in the same terms as under: ; i) The conclusian witfa reeardto Rule 61 off(ie_StaffSelectioa Rules is not waiTanted aad the issue is left open; ii) The decision of the Bank as well as Registrar of Ifae Cooperative Societies tenninatmg fhe servicea of the employees based on the report ofthe Lokayukt eannot be sustained andffie same is liable to be set aside. : iii)In view ofthe above conclusion, 1here is no need to remaad the issue to the Registrar or any other authority for adjudicatioa with regard to the status eamed by these employees, consequently the said direction ofthe High CourtisalsQsetaside. . .. w~.A; 5. There shall beno order asto costs. - ;'\ Sd/- / Satish K. Agnihotri 1 "-"^^ Judge ^fr- '^'?r%^'ii'ti'6^'®SaBS