1 2025:CGHC:13483 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2558 of 2018 1. Rameshwar Prasad Pandey S/o Surajdin Pandey Aged About 48 Years Security Guard ( Gunman ) District Co - Operative Central Bank Limited , Branch Choubey Colony Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2. Meer Kasim Ali S/o Shri Kabir Ali Aged About 37 Years R/o Nehru Nagar Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Hasim Ali S/o Shri Kadir Ali Aged About 33 Years R/o Nehru Nagar Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. District Co-Operative Kendariya Bank Maryadit, Through Chief Executive Officer , Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Authorized Officer / Board Of Director , District Co - Operative Kendariya Bank Maryadit Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. District Co - Operative Kendariya Bank Maryadit , Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Co Operative Societies , Through Joint Registrar Raipur Division District Raipur Chhattigarh., Chhattisgarh 5. Chhattisgarh State Co - Operative Tribunal Bilaspur Through Its Secretary Bilaspur Camp Court Raipur District Raipur Chhattigarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Manharan Lal Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.03.22 13:25:39 +0530 2 20. 03.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 13.02.2018 (Annexure P/1), arising out of order dated 01.08.2017 (Annexure P-2), passed by respondent No. 4 in Suit Case No. 55(2)/R/09/2017. 10.2 The, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents for considering the case of the petitioners for regularization of their service on the post on which they are working, In the light of representations (Annexure P/5). 10.3 The, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are working with respondent No. 1 from 27.12.2007. He would further submit that the petitioners made representations before the respondent authorities claiming therein regularization against the vacant and sanctioned post. He would further submit that the claim of the petitioners was recommended by the Bank to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Raipur on 27.01.2016, but till date, no decision has been taken. He would also submit that the services of six contractual employees have already been regularized by the concerned Bank vide order dated 13.08.2010, but the claim of the petitioners has not been considered, and thus, the action of the respondents is discriminatory. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Bank would submit that the names of the petitioners were recommended for regularization and the matter is pending consideration before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents 3 placed on the record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners were appointed in the year 2007-08 and the posts of Gunmen are still lying vacant with the Bank and services of the six contractual employees have already been regularized; this petition is disposed of with a direction the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Raipur to decide the representations of the petitioners for regularization strictly in accordance with the law taking into consideration the fact that they are working since 2007 and services of six contractual employees have already been regularized. 6. The decision shall be taken by the authority concerned within a period of 90 days. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant