^m--— —! jg Bsnc^ 3 ^ INTHI^y /-0^:./' COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.<?.) WRIT PETITION.NO. 4-3 j3 OF 2004 BETWEEN Premanand Shah, aged about 34 years, S/o Shri Udai Shah, orally terminated daily wages employee (Bhritya), Head Office, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, Maryadit, Bilaspur, resident of Indra Vihar Colony, S.E.C.L. Brlaspur ,Tehsil and District Bilaspur (CG). 2. Mansharam Kashyap ,aged about 35 years, S/o Kunjram Kashyap, occupation orally terminated daily wages employee (Bhritya),Head Office, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mar/adit, Bilaspsur, r/o Bajarpara Mariya Road, Bilaspur (CG). PETITIONER AND f ^\.<-' I- The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Department of Co-operative Societies Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (C.G.) 2- The Registrar, Co-operative Societies Chhattisgarh, Near Agriculture College, Labhandi, Raipur, Tehsil and District: Raipur (C.G.) II /l^U' 3-^f ^ila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, ^-^-^" ^ |ead Office, Bilaspur, lead Office, Bilaspur, 'hrough its Gener.al Manager. ^y us 4- / Chief Executive officer, .^ Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, Maryadit, Bilaspur ^' ^^-/ Near Mungelinaka, Tehsil & District: Bilaspur (C.G.) ^^2^; ^\ RESPONDENTS <(0 WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA r HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR Wiit Petition No. 4313 of 2004 Petitioners Prcmaiiaiid Shah aiid aaofher Versus Respondeiits The State of Chhattisgarh aiicl ofhers : Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Agsiiliotri. Shri Gaiy Mukhopadliyaya, Advocate for fhe petitiouers, Anju Ahiija, Deputy Govt, Advocate for fhe respondeute No, 1 and 2. Shri S, L, Kunni, Aclvcx^ate for flie respondeiits No. 3 aad 4. ORAL ORDER (17thJuly, 2006) The foUo^7mg order of ttie Court is passed by Satisb K. Agsaihotri, J. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 were appoiiited as Peons 011 daily wages on 18.1.1994 and 24.7.1996, respectively, by ZUa Sahakari Kendriya Maiyadit, BUaspur. Their seivices were discontinued by order dated 12.2.2000. The petitioner No.l along with ofhers filed W. P. No. 2236/2000 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, challeiigiiig fhe termmation order, The High Coiirt of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur by ite judgment aad order dated 8.5.2000 (Aniiexiirc P/1) clirected fhe respoudeiit/aiithorities to cousider thecases of the petitioner No,l along with ofhers, Purauaiit to the oider dated 8,5,2000 fhe petitionera were taken back m service by order dated 31.7.2000 (Annexure P/ 2) . Leaiiied couiisel appeariiig for fhe petitioners submits fhat all of a sudden by an oral order, fhe services of fhe petitioners were cliscoiitmuecl 011 1.11.2004, 3. Shri S. L- Kurnii, leanied counsel appearmg for the responcleuts No, 3 4, oii the coiitTaiy, submits fh.^.t the petitioiiera have never beeii 2. IKNIN^- 7. Thakur rcmoved froni service by sjiy orcler, includiiig the oral order. They reiiianied absent ever siace, till date, ancl as such fhe petitioners have iio right to contliiue as Peon 011 daily wages basis. He farther submits that the petitioners have not resorted to the efficacious alteniative remedy, which is provided uncler Sectiou 55 of fhe Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 ( for short 'the Act, 1960'). The preseiit case iavolves disputed ciiiestions of facts and even ofhen^ise, altemative remedy avaflable uiider Section 55 of fhe Act, 1960 is expeditious aiid efficacious and fhe saine caniiot be bypassed. Leaoied counsel for ttie petitioner agrees aacl submits that fhe petitloiiera be permitted to evail the alteniative remecty as provided iinder Sectioii 55 of fhe Act, 1960 aiid the petitionera be protectecl from bar of liiaitation ia filmg appeal before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Having heard leamed counsel for the parties and having regaixl to fhe circiimstances of the case, the petitioners are at Uberty to the altemative remedy as providecl under the Act, 1960 wifliiii a period of two weeks from flie clate of rcceipt of copy of tiiis oider aiid iii that event, the question of IlDiitation would not come isi the case of of appeal, In tuni, the Registrar, Cooperative Society shaU consider aiid decide flie case of fhe petitioners within a period of 8 weeks froni the date of ffliag of the appeal before him, 011 m.erite, m accordance with law, wifhout beiag iafluenced by fhe observations aiade hereuiabove. Wifli tlie above observations, the petition staiids disposed of. No oider as to costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge