4», IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR! WA No. $? OF2010 l APPELLANT /‘: ”APPELLANT-0' FE I I IaNEK RESPONDENTS 1) Parmanand Shlah, S/o. Shri Udaj Shah, aged about 39 years (terminated i from the post ofipeon), R/o Jora Talab f Behlnd Fam1ly Planmng Office Sipat i Road Sarkanda, D1stt Bllaspur (C G ) Versus The State of Chhattlsgarh through the Secretary, Department of Co operatwe Soc1et1es, Chhattlsorarh Mantralaya at DKS Bhawan Ra1pur Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies ‘Chhattisgarh , near Agriculture 'College, Lalbhandi,‘ Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (co) Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies Chhattisgarh “W near Agriculture ‘ College, Lalbhandi, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Deputy Registrar, Co-operative ' Societies Chhattisgarh near Agriculture College, Lalbhandi, Raipur, Tehsil 85 Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Head Office, Bilaspur through its General Manager, Z ' @ AA wt , /:6) Chief Executive OfiiCef, Zila 1 Sahakari Kendriya, Bank Maryadit, ' BilaSpur neali‘ Mungelinaka, Tehsil 1 and District Biilaspui" (C.Gi) I APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 CLAUSE OF TH CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT 2006 B Hon ble Shrl Justice I M an Hon’ble Shrl Justice Prashan't Kumar MiShra Writ Appeal No.37 of 201 0’ n Present Shn R K Sharma counsel for the appellant “h n p ’Shrl Vlnay Harlt Deputy Advocate General With Shn AJIt Slngh Panel ‘ a Lawyer for the State/respondents No 1 to 4 E Shn D K Swain counsel for respondents No 5 and 6. __ ntA ‘:eal under Section 2 1 ofthe Chhattls arh HI h Court A e ‘ " {é ————)—J—— o DIVISlon Bench Act 200 ‘ ORAL ORDER ' (Passed on 29m April, 2010) Per I.M.%Quddusi, J.: 7' Learned counsel appearing for the parties are heard 2. This writ appeal has been fled against the Impugned order dated ‘ 29 1-2010 passed by the learned Slngle Judge In Wnt Petltlon (S) No 415/201 0 dlsmlssmg the wnt petition 3. The brief facts of the case are that the wnt appellant was appomted as Peon on dally wage baSIs on 18 1 1994 In Zlla Sahakan Kendnya Bank Maryadlt Bllaspur He was disengaged vrde order - dated 12-2-2000 against which he fled Wnt Petition No 2236/2000 In High Court of Madhya Pradesh which was Idlsposed vof Vlde orders dated 8 5-2000 directing the respondents to conSIder the case of the t :petltloner/wrlt appellant On conSIderIng the case of the petltloner/wrl “ t appellant he was taken back In serVIce Vlde order dated 31 7 2000 I a But again he was disengaged on 1 11-2004 Thereafter he again \—\ D d u W al t _ a AppeIIEant ' Parmanand Shah versus Respondents The EState of Chhattisgarh and éthers iled another wnt petition I e Writ Petition 313/2004, in this COUr f No 4 t.’ " which was disposed of on 17-7-2006 glvmg Ilt erty- ’to‘the petitioner/writ ppellant to avall altematlve remedy of fling an appeal under Section 55 of the Chhattlsgarh Cooperative Scoletles Act 1960 Within a penod f two weeks from the date of receipt of a c py of that order It was ected that the Registrar Cooperatrve Socretles shall conSIder ’e crde the case of the petttroner/wnt appellant wrthln a penod of lgh .weeks from the date of fImg of the appeal before him on merit e s ’ l as drsmrssed on the ground of Ilmltatlon by the Deputy w 1 Reg rr Cooperative Socretres Ralpur Tereafter he preferred a ta h en the writ petition In h ~ e learned Srngle Judge dismissed the writ petrtron on the hat when the liberty was glven to the petrtroner/wnt appellant to avarlalternatrve remedy of flllng an appeal he drd not avail the remedy wrthrn specrfled penod rther the‘instant matter ed-to disengagement‘of the wri pellnt who was appornted on daily wage basrs and even If he Is reinstated hrs engagement wrll be a fresh engagement and therefore ll Lof an appeal or rejectron of the same .would make no difference fn , I actis d, _ _ n frnce the writ appellant was engaged on darly wage basrs an 1 was not an employee of the concerned Cooperatlve Socrety at all here was no question of ralsrng any dispute or determination of hr ontrnurty oj servrce as he was a daily wagefemployee and on hrs « v a ‘ o , ‘ h “ ‘; ' t . g “ Fu i t t ‘ I, apa t s} c ? ngagment‘it'WOuld have been alwas a frenaemen tero vfr a i,’ al b d b to cohder the o ly wager, the etter :‘courser woul e si f' to ly ad o h y b e availableto a represenatin o'n n n oter remed can e mad ’ dlywa’ ai‘ger.‘ rf th i ppl dpq iect hat if eore, e wrt aea is risosedf with a'dr‘ion t t r pli 0 ptio or his fresh he wit: apeant mves a fresh reresenatn f ‘ ngagemen e auorities concerned ma consuder the same i i servrceso e wri apelanon all wae bas'ls are'stlll ruire i é; e% y éh‘egg’t, hefre, et th th y f i if th t plt dy g Z eqd, r The Impzugned order passed by the iearn’ P Single Judge stands ‘modifeditothe above extent " ‘ " . ‘ X i i Sd/- Sd// i I.M.Quddusi Ptashant Kum-ar Mlshra i . [\Y Judge