2025:HHC:30405 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.2879 of 2019 Decided on: 05.09.2025 Sanjeev Kumar ...Petitioners Versus The Solan District Cooperative and Consumers Federation Ltd. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. B.N. Mehta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents- State. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) The instant petition has been filed for following relief: “(i) That the petitioner in the facts and circumstances prays that the Annexure P/9 may be modified to the extend that the petitioner may be held entitled for back wages w.e.f. 19.4.2010 to 17.9.2013 when the petitioner joined the duty as per order of Respondent No.4 dated 18.9.2013.” 3. The case, as set up by the petitioner, is that he was appointed as daily wage Peon by respondent No.1-bank on 2 2025:HHC:30405 01.09.1999. He was transferred on 19.02.2010 from Solan to Mamlig. 3. Dissatisfied with his transfer, the petitioner filed a dispute under Section 72 of the Cooperative Societies Act (for short, “the Act”), before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, who appointed the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies as an Arbitrator. 4. The grievance, as raised by the petitioner, was that his transfer had been effected as a punishment as the petitioner had refused to exceed to unlawful and improper dictates by the Chairman and Manager of the Society, who were indulging in inappropriate behaviour in the office campus. 5. The Deputy Director, Cooperative Societies while exercising jurisdiction under Section 72 of the Act rejected the case of the petitioner vide order dated 24.01.2012, Annexure A-9. 6. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 93 of the Act before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies which was assigned to the Additional Registrar (Admn.) for disposal as Case No.268/2013. The appeal of the petitioner was decided on 28.10.2013. The appeal was partly allowed taking into consideration the aspect that despite non-joining at the transferred place of posting by the petitioner, the respondent- 3 2025:HHC:30405 Society had taken a lenient view and had agreed to allow the petitioner to join duties at Fair Price Shop, Chambaghat or Solan. Accordingly, the order was passed upholding the decision of the Society to post the petitioner at Fair Price Shop, Chambaghat or Solan. As regards the payment of wages during the period, the petitioner had absented himself from duty, no relief was granted and to that extent the appeal was dismissed. 7. Noticeably, neither the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies while exercising jurisdiction under Section 72 of the Act nor the appellate authority while passing order dated 28.10.2013, had held the allegations of petitioner against the Chairman and Manager of the Society as proved. There is no finding by either of these authorities that the transfer of the petitioner from Solan to Mamlig was result of punishment as alleged. That being so, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction will not enter into the arena of disputed questions of fact. The petitioner has not been able to point out any clinching material to justify his stand or to point out any perversity in the orders passed by the authorities under the Act. 8. In result, I do not find any material to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4 2025:HHC:30405 9. The petition is accordingly disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge 05th September, 2025 (vt)