COURT OF_CHHATT!SGARH: SILASPUR WritPetltion No. 1414 of 2035 Petitioners 1) Suresh Kumar Kaushik, S/o. Late B.R. Kaushlk, Aged about 43 years, Manager, District Cooperative Union Ltd., Nehru Chowk, BIIaspur, CG. 2) Rarneshwar Prasad Twari, S/o. Shri I.P. Tiwari, Aged about 42 years, Cierk. Distnct Cooperatiye Union Ltd., Nehru Chowk, Biiaspur, CG. 3) Devendra Kumar Twari, S/o. Bodh Ram Tiwari, about 31 years, Peon, Dlstrict Cooperative Union Ltd., Nehru Chowk, Biiaspur, CG. 4) Shivmani Gautam, S/o. Late B.L. Gautam, Aged about 27 years, Conipositor, District Cooperatjve union Ltd. (Press), Nehru Chowk, Biiaspur, CG. Versys 1) 2) 3) 4) State of Chhattisgarh through Its Secretap/, Department of Cooperative, IVJantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, CG. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattjsgarh, Raipur, CG. Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bllaspur, CG. District Cooperative Union Ltd., Nehru Chovi/k, Biiaspur through its Authorized Officer. •9.' m ^"^^ (Wrlt PeSltion under Articie 226/227 of the Constltutlon of India for Issuance ofy,Tit In the nature of nrsandanius, certlorari and for other suitabie wrlt orwrits, order or orders, direction or dlrectlons) SB: Hon'ble Shri Justlce Satish K. Agnihotrl Present: Shri Afroj Khan, counsei for the petitioners. Shri Vlnay Pandey, Panei Lav^/yer for respondents No. 1 to 3/ State. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawai, counsel for respondent No.4. ORAL (Passed on 23rd ApnS, 2007) i.A.No.11207/2006 This is an appiicatlon for bringing iegal helrs of petitioner No.1 on record. The appllcation is ordered as prayed for. The petitioners/Associatlon have sought for a direction to grant empioyees of the petitioners Association, the benefit of 5th Pay Commlssion. 2. Section 55 wlth Section 64 of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Socjeties Act, 19SO, cieariy provldes for determination of condltions of ernpioyment in Society as we!l as resolving any dlspute between ernpioyer and empioyee, bythe Registrar, Cooperative Societies. 3. The petitioners/Association, without taking recourse to the statutor^ remedy availabie to it, has approached to this Court directiy. There is no infririgement of any fundamentai or iegai right which may be consldered by this Court in exercise of its extraordinar^ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitutlon of Indla. 4. In view ofthe foregoing, thls petition Is dismissed. No order as to costs, ^- 5, However, iiberty is reserved to the petitioners/Assoclation to recourse of the appropriate forum that may be avaiiable to them. This order wil! not come In the way of the Registrar or any other concerned authority to any order, in accordance wlth' iaw. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge raju