1 2025:CGHC:23277-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 332 of 2025 1. Chief Executive Officer Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, (Res. 5 And 7) 2. Collector-Cum-Authorized Officer Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1. Bhupesh Rathore S/o Fatte Lal Rathore Aged About 39 Years R/o Quarter No. Se-368, C.S.E.B. Colony, Korba East, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh, (Petitioner) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Co- Operative Societies, Ministry Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, P.O. And P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 3. Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5. Commissioner (Rev.) Bilaspur Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6. Chairman / Board Of Directors Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.06.13 15:19:26 +0530 2 For Appellant : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12 .06.2025 1. Heard Ms. Seema Verma, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 608 of 2021 (Bhupesh Rathore vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge with following terms:- “35. For the foregoing, all these writ petitions are allowed. The order of termination of petitioners from service which are under challenge in these writ petitions are hereby quashed. Petitioners are directed to be reinstated in service without back wages. However, the respondents authorities are at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for taking action against the petitioners on the basis of allegation made by following proper procedure and by giving proper opportunity of hearing to petitioners.” 3 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 307/2025 (Chief Executive Officer and Another vs. Pankaj Kumar Tiwari & Others) vide order dated 08.05.2025, observing as follows : “13. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the batch of writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners including the respondent No.1 herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge only on the ground of violation of principle of Natural Justice but while remanding back the matter to consider afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners, the learned Single Judge has directed to reinstate the services of the writ petitioners without back wages, in our considered opinion when the matter has already been remanded back for fresh consideration on the ground of violation of principle of Natural Justice, it was not justified by the learned Single Judge to order for reinstatement of services of the writ petitioner though without back wages, who were not in service since 2015. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner has tried to justify the order of the learned Single Judge, but he could not dispute the fact that the matter has been remanded back by the learned Single Judge on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the writ appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge so far as it relates to the direction to respondent authorities to reinstate the services of the petitioner without back wages is 4 concerned, the same is set aside. 16. Further considering the fact that writ petitioner / respondent No.1 and other similarly situated writ petitioner, who are 29 in number, are not in service since, 2015, we direct the appellants herein/respondent Nos. 6 & 7 therein to conclude the fresh proceedings, as has been ordered by the learned Single Judge, as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 307/2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 307/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 307/2025. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 08.05.2025 passed in WA No. 307/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan