HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PET1TION (31 N0.3278 of 2007 Petitioners 1 Hemlat Nfshad Son of Kalapram Nishad, aged about 29 years, Occupation Service and at present working as Salesman in the Gramin Seva Sahkari Samitl Bhanwarpur, Tahsil Basna, Dfetrict Mahasamund (C.G.) Jitendra Patel Son of Jagdish Prssad Patei, aged about 26 years, Occupation Service and at present woridng as Salesman in the Gramin Seva Sahkari Samiti Bhanwanxir, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Chumman Patel Son of Sahni Patel, aged about 31 yeare, Occupation Service and at present workir^ as Salesman in the Graniin Seva Sahkari Samiti Bhanwarpur, TahsU Basna, District Mahssamund (C.G.) Versys Resoondente 1. 2. 3. The Regretrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative S<wirties, Manasamund (C.G.) The Authorized Offica-, Gramin Seva Sahkari Samtti Bhanwarpur, Tahsil tosna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE227 OF THE GONSTITUTION OF INDIA Single Bench :- Hon'ble Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present:- Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for e petitioners. 1. ORDER (Passed on this 13tn day of June, 2007) By this petition, tited under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petffioners quesUon the legality and validity of the order dated 24.5.2007 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Registrar, Cooperative 2 4. 5. Bl Societies, Chhattisgarh Raipur, whereby stay of the termlnatton order has been rejected. According to learned counsel appearing for the peUBoners, the pet'itioners were terminated vide order dated 23/27.4.2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperathre Societies, Mahasamund. The petftioners have chaltonged the validity of the order dated 23127.43007 before the Registrar, CooperaUve Societies, Raipur, which is sfill pending coreideratien. In the meantime, the petittoners flled an a^licaUon tor 8rant <rf stey on the ground Uiat the petitioners have been working on the post. The Registrar, Cooperatwe Societies, Raipur dismissed ttie said application by the impugned order dated 24.52007. Contention of the leamed counsel that the petitionere are continuing, does not go along with the contention that Vne tennination wder has been passed and given effect to together. The chaltenge to ttre same is pending consideration before the higher authority. Be that as it may, when admittedly, the services of Uie petitioners have been termlnated and chattenge to the order is still pending consideration before the higher authority, there is no question of granting stay of the termination order on the ground that ttie petitioners have been working. 1 fall to underetand tww the petitioneis can work after the termination orders have been p^sed. The termination order cannot be stayed on the ground that the petitioners are conUnuing in work. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Uiis petffion has no merit and as such, is petiUon is dismissed summarity. 1 : Sd/- i Satish K. Agnihom 1 Judge