1 2025:CGHC:16172 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 183 of 2021 1 Monitar Ram Kushwaha S/o Late Devidayal Kuswaha Aged About 68 Years Terminated Samiti Sewak, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja, Chhattisgarh R/o Village Bakalu, Post- Karji Darima Road, Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Ambikapur Through Chief Executive Officer Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Shishir Dixit, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Anurag Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.04.09 11:12:14 +0530 2 07/04/2025 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition the petitioner who is a retired employee of the respondent/ District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Ambikapur has preferred the present writ petition seeking direction towards the respondents to make payment of back wages with all consequential benefits with 6% interest. 2. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Samiti Sevak in Primary Society Silphili, dist Surguja. On 15.07.1994 the petitioner was removed from service, which was challenged by the petitioner by raising a dispute under section 55 (2) of the C.G. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1960’). The said dispute was dismissed by order dated 11.04.1996. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing an appeal and in the said appeal the case was remanded back on 07.12.1996 to Deputy Registrar. After remand the Deputy Registrar vide order dated 11.07.1997 quashed the order of removal dated 15.07.1994 and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner along with back wages. (b) Against the order of Deputy Registrar dated 11.07.1997, the respondent/ District Cooperative Central Bank preferred an appeal before the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies. The Joint Registrar allowed the appeal vide order dated 28.08.1998 and the order of Deputy Registrar dated 11.07.1997 was set aside. 3 Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal and by order dated 16.11.2000, the case was remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to decide the departmental inquiry afresh after providing the final show cause notice and opportunity of hearing. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred writ petition bearing WP No. 2504/2001, and the same was disposed off by order dated 11.09.2009 with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal. (c) On 28.03.2012, the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society allowed the appeal and quashed the order of removal dated 15.07.1994 but denied the back wages on the principle of no work no pay. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies and by order dated 16.07.2014 the order of Deputy Registrar was affirmed. The respondent/ bank preferred an appeal against the order of reinstatement of petitioner before the Joint Registrar and the same was dismissed by order dated 16.07.2014. Thereafter, the respondent/ bank preferred appeal before the C.G. Cooperative Tribunal Bilaspur wherein the order of Deputy Registrar dated 28.03.2012 was affirmed. The petitioner also preferred appeal against the order of Joint Registrar and the Deputy Registrar before the Cooperative Tribunal seeking payment of back wages and by order dated 22.06.2017 the Tribunal set aside the order of Joint Registrar and Deputy Registrar and ordered that the petitioner is entitled for back wages from 31.10.2001 to the date of retirement i.e. 4 28.02.2010 with all consequential reliefs with interest of 6% p.a. The respondent bank thereafter preferred WP227 No. 618 of 2015 against the order dated 22.12.2014 passed by Tribunal and WP227 No. 833 of 2017 against the order dated 22.06.2017 and both the cases were decided vide order dated 11.02.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the order that the petitioner is entitled for back wages, the respondents are not releasing the back wages to the petitioner till date. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/ bank refers para 7 of the order of this court in WP227 No. 833 of 2017. The same is quoted herein below:- “7. That when the order of Joint Registrar which was already challenged in Appeal Case No.98/2014 and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 22.12.2014, then without assigning any reason why another appeal was preferred which is registered as Appeal Case No.36/2016 and decided by the impugned order. Further, it is surprising to see that there is no reference made in the impugned order regarding the previous appeal filed and dismissed by the same Tribunal, therefore, this question is also present. It can be said that the learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to re-entertain the same appeal and re-decide the same by the impugned order, hence, the petition appears to be without any substance which is dismissed and disposed off at motion stage.” 5 4. By referring the Para 7, learned counsel for the respondent/ bank submits that as this Court has observed that once the tribunal has entertained the order of Joint Registrar and Deputy Registrar a separate appeal has been entertained though Tribunal was having no jurisdiction to re entertain and re-decide the same. Hence the order of Tribunal granting back wages to the petitioner is bad in law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records and the pleadings. 6. It is not in dispute that the Cooperative Tribunal vide order dated 22.06.2017 ordered for back wages and the said order was challenged by the respondent/ bank before this court in WP227 No. 833 of 2017 which has been dismissed by order dated 11.02.2020 though there was an observation that without assigning any reason subsequent appeal has been entertained by the Tribunal and the tribunal has re-decided the same. It appears from the order of this Court in WP227 No. 833 of 2017 and the order of the Tribunal dated 22.06.2017 in appeal No. 36 of 2016, the said appeal was filed by the petitioner questioning the particular part of the order of Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar by which the Deputy registrar has refused to grant back wages declaring the said period as no work no pay and the other appeal which was filed by the bank, the same was for reinstatement and there was no dealing of the Tribunal about the back wages part and hence in my opinion the entertainment of the appeal filed by 6 the petitioner herein was just and proper and the Tribunal has rightly passed the order by setting aside the part in which the Deputy Registrar has declared the period as no work no pay and refused for payment of back wages and hence once the order of tribunal is in favour of the appellant which has been affirmed by this Court in WP227 No. 833 of 2017 vide order dated 11.02.2020 the petitioner is entitled for back wages for the period 31.10.2001 to till date of retirement i.e. 28.2.2010. The respondent bank is directed to take necessary steps within a period of 50 days to release the same along with 6 % interest. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti