1 2025:CGHC:45809 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6102 of 2017 1 - Dipak Kumar Chandra S/o Shri Shankar Lal Chandra, Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Village Piharid, Police Station Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Cooperative Societies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Shahkari Central Bank Limited, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Through Its General Manager., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sewa Shahkari Samiti Maryadit, Having Its Registration No. 901, Through Its Branch Manager, Pihrid, District Janjgir Champa., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate For State : Shri T.L. Bareth, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.09.10 17:54:38 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs: “a. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records from the Court below concerned pertaining to the case of petitioner for kind perusal. b. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the entire action of the respondent authorities in removing the petitioner from the services and to take back him in service in the interest of justice. c. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to disburse salary of 14 months to the petitioner immediately in the interest of justice. d. Cost of the proceedings. e. Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.” 2. The petitioner was working under respondent No.4, i.e., Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, which is a registered society and it does not fall within the definition of State, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable as no writ can be issued against respondent No.4. Therefore, in my opinion, this petition is not maintainable and it is accordingly dismissed. 3 However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy available under the law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Gopal