\ ".'.^^"T'y?^^?'^, »fc s-: 4-.'' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR WMT PETITION No. 3018 of2004 PETITIONER : 1. Alok Kumar Yadav S/o SlmM.L.Yadav, resident of D-A-1, Chandela Vihar, Bilaspur. 2. Hemant kumar Chandrakar. S/o Shri Salik Ram Chaiidrakar, R/o Shubham Vihar, Oni Zone Road, BilaspurG.G. __ 3. Smt. Suehi Prablia Sharma W/o Sliri G.K.Shamia, R/o 7, Hanuman Nagar, Titurdih, Durg. 4. Chandra Prakash Namdeo, S/o Sliri Basaiitlal Namdeo E/Q Near Moudhapara Thaaa, GRP Line, Raipur C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. ChhattisgaTli Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Raipur, C.G.TlB-ough its MaiiagingDirectQr 2. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, M.P. Bhopal. - WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTtTUTION OF INDIA. SB: Hon'UeShriSatishK.Aamhotri.J. Present: Dr. N.K.Shukla, Senior Advocate with Shn A.K.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. • ° : y Shri R.M.Solapurkar, Advocate fort}ie respondeiit No. 1. ORALORDER (Passed on 04°' day of January, 2008) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the similarly situated employees of the respondent bank had approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in W.P. No. 1421 of 2005. The Hi^i Court of Madhya Pradesh, by order dated 19.04.2006 afler having considered, allowedthe application inthe followingtenns: "31. Ex-eonsequenti, we proceed to enumeraf& our conclusions in seriatim, as under: (i) The Rule 61 ofthe StafF Selection Rules is ultca- vires and unconstitutionaL "(u) Theorderdated 4.2.2005 passed by the Tribunal- vide- Annexure P4 is quashed. (iii) Tfe CQiitroversy is remanded tp the| M.P. Coopera.tiye TnbutialTfer adjudication with regaid to Ifaejstatuseaiaedbythepetitioners. j A: 1 (iv) The M.P. Cooperative Tribunal shall finalise the lis wifhin a period of four months from the date of order. The Tribunal shall not be influenced bv the fact that this Court has aot directed reinstatement and invoked the concept 6f post-decisional hearmg. The Tribunal shall independently decidethe lis in questipn keeping in viewthe law inthe iield. 32. The vwit petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs." The Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Limited, Bhopal, fhe respondent in the said writ petition filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court which.afl.er grant ofleave, was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 4481 of2007. The Supreme Court, having considered all the aspects passed the following orders: "31) In Ught oflhe above discussion, we pass the followms order: i) The conclusion with regard to Rule 61 ofthe Staif Selection Rules is not warranted and the issue is left open; ii) The decision of the Bank as well as Registrar of the Cooperative Societies terminating the services of the employees based on the report of the Lokayukt carmot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. iii) In view of the above cohclusion, there is no need to remand fhe issue to the Registrar or any other authority for adjudication with regard to the status eamed by these employees, eonsequently the saiddireetion ofthe High Court is also setaside." Dr. N.K.Shukla, counsel appearing for the petitionera and Shri R.M.Solapurikar, eounsel a{yearing forfhe respoadent vto. 1 jointly submit that the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered bythe judgment and order dated 25.09.2007 assed by the Supreme C^ourt in Civil :i ^ Appeal No. 4481 of 2007, as tihie respondents in Civil .4ppeal and the T 5. petitionere in the present writ petition are sirnilarly situated. The same order which was impuened in the writ petition before the Hidi Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 1421/2005, is under challenge in the present petition. In view of the foregoing, as admitted by leamed counsels appearing for the parties, this petition is allowed in the same tenns as under: i) The conclusion with regard to Rule 61 ofthe Staff Seleetion Rules is not warranted and the issue is left open; ii) The decision of the Bank as well as Registrar of the Cooperative Soeieties terminatme the services of the employees based on the report of the Lokayukt eaimot be sustained aad the same is liable to be set aside. iii)In visw ofthe above conclusion, there is no need to remand the issue to the Registrar or any other aufliority for adjudication with regard to the status eamed by these •employees, consequently the said direetion ofthe Hi^iCourt is also set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/'- Satish K. Agaihotri Judge .aiiiit