1 2025:CGHC:13719 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4808 of 2018  Smt. Pratima Singh W/o Late Shri Ramesh Kumar Singh Aged About 58 Years R/o Behind Basant Complex, Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus  District Cooperative Central Bank Limited Through The Chief Executive Officer, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21. 03.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 To kindly direct the respondents to release the retiral dues (gratuity, Leave encashment, and benefit of employee’s group insurance) to the petitioner. 10.2 To kindly direct the respondents to pay interest on delay payment at the rate of 18% per annum. 10.3 Any other order that may be deemed fit and just may also kindly be made including cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the husband of the petitioner was appointed to the post of Organization Manager under the respondents, and he died during the course of service on 04.09.2007, but SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.03.24 17:31:23 +0530 2 till date the retiral dues like gratuity, leave encashment and the benefit of employee’s group insurance have not been paid to the petitioner. He would further submit that a direction may be issued to the respondent to make payment of retiral dues expeditiously. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner should approach the Registrar, Cooperative Societies according to the provisions of Section 55(2) of the C.G. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. She would further submit that an order of recovery to the tune of Rs. 4,38,028/- has already been passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the bank and that order has not been challenged. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that there is an order of recovery against the husband of the petitioner and the same has not been challenged and further, there is an efficacious alternative remedy available in favour of the petitioner; no case is made out for interference. 6. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy available under the law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant