1 2025:CGHC:25163-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 369 of 2025 1 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Bilaspur, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector - Cum - Authorized Officer Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur Nehru Chowk Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Chandrashekhar Kurrey S/o Shree Ganesh Ram Kurrey Aged About 31 Years R/o Q. No. Te - 318, Indra Chowk, Pathripara, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary Department Of Co- Operative Societies, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Po 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) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.06.19 10:38:16 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Akash Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respective respondents/State as well as Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. The present writ appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 482/2021 (Chandrashekhar Kurrey vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge. 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 partly allowed WA No. 318/2025 (Chief Executive Office and another vs. Chanchanl Kumar Dubey & Others) vide order dated 10.06.2025, observing as follows : “13. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the batch of writ petitions filed by the writ 3 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. Learned counsel appearing for the parties would jointly submit that the identical matter bearing Writ Appeal No. 307/2025 (Chief Executive Officer & Anr. vs. Pankaj Kumar Tiwari & Others.) has already been considered and decided by order dated 08/05/2025. 16. For the foregoing reasons and also considering the fact that the identical writ appeal has already been decided, the instant 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 4 direction to respondent authorities to reinstate the services of the petitioner without back wages is concerned, the same is set aside. 17. 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. 5 & 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. 318/2025, this appeal may also be partly allowed 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. 318/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 318/2025. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed in terms of the order dated 10.06.2025 passed in WA No. 318/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet