1 2025:CGHC:39316-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 576 of 2025 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Co-Operative Societies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Block 3, Second and Third Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Additional Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Block 3, Second and Third Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Smt. Seeta Thakur, Wd/o Ramesh Kumar Thakur, aged about 55 years R/o Village Khauna, Post And P.S. Silyari, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, (Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit) Through President/chief-Executive Officer, New-Mandi Pandri, Great Eastern- Road, Devendra Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh. District -Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellants/State : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Boar d Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06 . 08 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General along with Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State / appellants as well as Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.1 on I.A. No. 01 of 2025, which is an application for codonation of delay of 87 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the said application, the same is allowed. Delay of 87 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellants/State, who were respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the writ petition, have challenged the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5784 of 2022 (Smt. Reeta Thakur Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the respondent No.1, who is the widow of the deceased Late 3 Ramesh Kumar Thakur, who died during the pendency of the writ petition, filed writ petition bearing WP(S) No. 5784/2022 before this Court praying for the following reliefs :- 10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records of the case from the respondents. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash set aside the order dated 06/01/2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no. 2 being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ / writs, direction / directions for grant of increment to the petitioners from the year 2020-21 onwards in the interest of justice. 10.4. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief (s) which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and cost of the petition may also be given to the petitioner." 5. The case of the respondent No.1 before the learned Single Judge was that her deceased husband started his services in District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Raipur (M.P.) in the year 1996 and after formation of the State of Chhattisgarh and after bifurcation of assets and liabilities between M.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit, Raipur, he chose to stay in District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Raipur (now Chhattisgarh) and continued his services in the State of Chhattisgarh and he holds the post of Peon. The service conditions of the employees of the 4 Cooperative Bank are governed through the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Central Bank Employees Services (Terms of Employment and Working Conditions) Rules 1982 (in short, "the Service Rules"). The aforesaid Service Rules have been issued by the Registrar under Section 55(1) of the CG Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act, 1960’. Vide order dated 06/03/2019, the Registrar amended the said recruitment rules / service conditions with respect to the pay scale of the writ petitioner and other employees working in the Apex Bank Raipur. Thereafter, vide order dated 08/03/2019, the Registrar again amended the recruitment rules / service conditions of the District Cooperative Bank Bilaspur and Rajnandgaon whereby it has been provided with respect to the difference in the pay scale which is not acceptable and later on, as per the powers conferred under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960, amended the recruitment rules /service conditions. 6. Further case of the writ petitioner was that an order dated 22/01/2020 was issued by the CEO, District Cooperative Central Bank, Raipur for implementation of the said amended recruitment rules / service conditions and thereafter, on 21/09/2021 a request was made to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies for recalling the order dated 06/01/2020 thereby amending the recruitment rules / service conditions with respect to the pay scale and grant of increment being contrary to law. Subsequent to this, a memo dated 17/12/2021 was sent by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative 5 Societies, Raipur to the Registrar. Cooperative Societies communicating the report of the joint meeting held by the Bank officials in which it has been resolved to declare the order dated 06/01/2020 to be null and void being contrary to law. A representation was made by the writ petitioner before the President /Authorized Officer and informed that as he is going to retire on 28/02/2023 but, two annual increments for 2021 and 2022 have not been granted and added to his salary which resulted in receiving the less pension in future and therefore, a request to add the annual increments for the year 2021 and 2022 in his salary and to release the arrears amount was made and when no action on the said representation was taken, he filed the writ petition and prayed for the aforesaid reliefs. The ground urged by the petitioner in assailing the order dated 06/01/2020 (Annexure P/1) was that the impugned order passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies is discriminatory, arbitrary and contrary to law and further the action of the Registrar, Cooperative is contrary to the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules, 1982 which is clear act of violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. The writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was contested by the appellants as well as the respondent Bank by submitting their respective return. In the return, it was contested by the appellants that the order under challenge has been passed by the Registrar in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 55(1) 6 of the Act, 1960 empowering him to determine the condition of employment and frame rules governing the terms and conditions of the employment in the Society. It was further submitted that as per the provisions contained in Section 78 of the Act, 1960, the order passed by the Registrar is appealable. It was further submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, on 15/03/2023 the Registrar has amended the District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Service Rules, 1982 particularly the rules in connection with Classification of the Bank, Staffing Pattern, Pay Scale, Recruitment, Promotion, Compensatory Employment rules, compulsory retirement etc, and issued a fresh order dated 15/03/2023 regarding the service conditions of the employees belonging to Cooperative Central Banks whereby after incorporation of the Rules, the impugned order dated 06/01/2020 has lost its efficacy and in furtherance of the order dated 15/03/2023, the Registrar has further issued order dated 30/05/2023 and 21/06/2023 explaining few amendments of the order dated 15/03/2023 regarding staff cost limitation of the employees who have been working before the new recruitment and are listed in the dying cadre. Therefore, the petition filed by the writ petition has rendered infructuous and accordingly liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 8. It was further contested by the appellants in its return that the services of the petitioner are governed with the Service Rules of District Co-operative Bank Employee Service Rules, particularly 7 Rule 21(2), which specifically indicates that the increment of the employee of the Bank cannot be stopped only to condition 51-A of the Service Rules, but the order of amendment has been passed by the respondent Registrar. It has been contended that the ground taken by the petitioner under Section 95(3) of the Act has not been complied with, as Section 95(3) speaks about any rule make under the Act would be put before the table of legislative assembly, as such, the argument of the petitioner is very mischievous and misleading. It was further submitted that it is not disputed that any disciplinary or departmental proceedings are running against the petitioners, but, the increment has not been stopped as a punishment of the particular person /employee. It was contended that the impugned Service Rules has been framed for good financial health of the Bank and if the health of the Co-operative Central Bank will loose, the employee will suffer by other yearly increment, thus, the punishment has not been imposed to employee. Reliance upon the judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of M.L. Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 3550 of 2013 decided on 04.01.2016 was placed. 9. The said writ petition was finally heard by the learned Single Judge and it was observed that the Registrar exercising powers under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960 is required to follow with the procedure prescribed in law when the same is resulting in taking 8 away of accrued right of the employees. There is nothing on record to show that such legal procedure has been followed by the respondents before taking away the accrued rights of the writ petitioner to receive annual increment upon completion of service of one year. By placing reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Director (Admn and HR) KPTCL and others v. CP Mundinamani and others" reported in 2023 SCC onLine SC 401, "Balco Captive Power Plant Mazdoor Sangh and another v. National Thermal Power Corporation and others reported in (2007) 14 SCC 234, Hemant Kumar Ganga Prasad Gupta v. President, District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja and others reported in 1983 MPLJ 461, Hukamchand Mills Karmachari Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha and others v State of M. P. and others reported in 1988 MPLJ 201, the learned Single Bench has held the impugned orders dated 06/01/2020 and 15/03/2023 issued by the Registrar Cooperative Societies to be violative to the mandatory requirement of law and do not have statutory force to effect any change in service conditions of the writ petitioner to receive annual increment. It was further held by the learned Single Judge that the Registrar while passing the impugned order dated 06/01/2020 has not considered the bar provided under Rule 57 of the Service Rules and has straightaway restricted the accrued right of the writ petitioner and hence, the impugned order is contrary to the Service Rules. 9 Holding so, the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order under appeal (Annexure A/1) and by quashing the orders dated 15/03/2023 and 06/01/2020 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh and the order dated 22/01/2020 issued by the District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Raipur, and further quashing the order dated 11/03/2024 upholding the order dated 06/01/2020, it has been held that the writ petitioner is entitled for annul increments w.e.f. 01/04/2021. 10. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General, appearing for the State/appellants vehemently argued that the impugned order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is absolutely perverse, unjust, unreasonable and against the rules as the same has been passed without appreciating the materials brought on record and without application of mind. He further argued that admittedly under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960, it is the Registrar, who has the power to frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a Society, class of Society. Section 95 gives the power to the Government to make rules for conduct and regulation of the business of Society, class of Society or to carry out any purpose of Cooperative Societies Act. A perusal of Section 95 of the Act, 1960 makes it clear that it deals with a situation where the State Govt. frames the rules for the purpose of the Act. Apparently, sub-section (3) relates to rules framed by the State Govt. for the purpose of the Act and cannot 10 be applied to an order by which the rules regarding service conditions in a Cooperative Society is framed under Section 55(1) of the Act of 1960. He also argued that the recruitment and service conditions of the Cooperative Society / Cooperative Bank has been made by the Registrar exercising the powers under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960. If non-compliance of the provisions contained in Section 95(3) of the Act, 1960 is taken as it is, then all the orders, amendments, rules framed by the Registrar under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960 would become void. Section 55(1) gives an exclusive power to the Registrar to determine the terms and conditions of employment of an employee of a Cooperative Society. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra and Others, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 367 and Sudhir Shantilal Mehta Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 1. He also placed reliance on the judgments passed by Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matters of The State of M.P. Vs. Ramchara, reported in AIR 1977 Madhya Pradesh 68 and Sevaram Totaram Pargir Vs. Board of Revenue, M.P. Gwalior and another, reported in 1983 M.P.L.J. 645. 11. Mr. Bharat further submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to take note of the fact that the function of the Registrar under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960 is legislative in nature. The 11 order which is issued by the Registrar under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960 is essentially a form of legislation and has force of the Statute and the same power has been provided to the Registrar by the Act itself. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in WP No. 9716 of 2026 (District Cooperative Central Bank Employees and Officers Federation Chhindwara Vs. State of M.P. and others). It has been also submitted that Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the power of the State / Registrar is not independent discretionary power without any check and balance, but, is subject to will of the people and since the rules made by the Registrar have not been tabled in the Legislative Assembly in accordance with the provisions of Section 95(3) of the Act, 1960, the same are bad. In this regard, it is submitted that the said finding of the learned Single Bench is not in conformity with the Act as Section 55 is altogether different provision which deals with the power of the Registrar whereas Section 95 deals with the power to make rule by the State. Any rule framed under Section 95 has to be essentially tabled in the Legislative Assembly, but any rule / change in service condition made by the Registrar under Section 55 of the Act, 1960 need not to be tabled before the Legislative Assembly. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of "Ramesh Dutta Pandey Vs. 12 State of M.P. and others' in WP No. 14502/2006. 12. In the context of observation made by the learned Single Judge that before making any change in the service rule, opportunity of hearing was not afforded, it is submitted by Mr. Bharat that the principle of natural justice has no application when the authority is exercising the legislative or quasi legislative power. The power to make rule and issue order under Section 55 conferred on the Registrar is in the nature of legislative power, which is delegated to him by the Act itself and as such, for the aforementioned facts and circumstances submitted, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.1/ writ petitioner supports the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 15. From perusal of the impugned order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, it transpires that the said order has been passed while hearing the batch of writ petitions filed by different writ petitioners, who were employees of the District Co- operative Central Bank Limited, Raipur (in short, “the Bank”) in 13 different posts; such as, Branch Manager, Additional Assistant Manager, Society Manager, Accountant, Assistant Accountant, Clerk and Peon etc. The common grievance in those batch of writ petitions is in respect of denial/stoppage of annual increments to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.04.2021. 16. The Bank is a "Cooperative Bank" as defined under Section 15(D)(b) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1959 as well as Section 2(d-i) of the Act, 1960 The service conditions of the petitioners are governed through the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Central Bank Employees Services (Terms of Employment and Working Conditions) Rules 1982 (in short, “the Service Rules”). The aforesaid Service Rules have been issued by the Registrar under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960. In the year 2016, based on the suggestions received from various quarters, including National Federation of State Cooperative Banks (in short, ‘NAFSCOB’), Chairman, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (in short, ‘NABARD’) constituted "Committee for a Assessment of Human Resources of STCCS in the Post CBS Environment" under Chairmanship of Shri R. Amalorpavanathan, Deputy Managing Director, NABARD (in short, “the APN Committee”). The aforesaid Committee vide letter dated 10.10.2017 submitted its report and recommended that the cost effective measures are to be taken by the Cooperative Banks, but nowhere recommended that the annual increments of the existing employees be withheld or denied based upon their performance. 14 Since the pay-scale of the employees of the Bank needed revision on the basis of Price Index Pay Scale, the Registrar Cooperative Societies Chhattisgarh vide order dated 15.06.2018 constituted a 6 member Committee for submitting the Bankwise, Postwise Pay Fixation Report in accordance with the Financial Conditions of the Banks, absorption angle, the pay-scale given in the Nationalized Banks and the directives of the NABARD. The aforesaid Committee submitted its report on 19.09.2018 and 03.10.2018. The Additional Registrar vide order dated 22.02.2019 constituted another 5 member Committee to submit reasonable and justifiable proposal for amendment in the Service Rules and Pay-scale of the Bank taking into account the report submitted by the 6 member Committee and other factors; such as, pay-scale of Government servants, nationalized banks and financial position of banks etc. The aforesaid 5 member Committee submitted its report on 28.02.2019. The Registrar on the basis of such report exercised its powers under Section 55(1) of the Act and amended the Service Rules vide order dated 06.03.2019. 17. In the month of May 2019, the NABARD issued a Circular No.131/IDD-03/2019 and directed the appellants to place the APN Committee Report before the Board of the Banks for consideration and adoption with necessary modifications, if any to suit the banks requirements. In the meantime, the State Government vide order dated 06.06.2019 posted Shri Dhananjay Dewangan IAS as Registrar Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh 15 and the intimation letter dated 10.06.2019 was issued to this effect. The aforesaid Registrar on 06.01.2020 passed the impugned order vide No. Sakh-2/CCB/60/2019 purportedly under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960 substituting the Appendix prescribed in Rule 21(6) of the Service Rules and making the pay revision subject to the conditions imposed therein. The Registrar mentioned about report submitted by the aforesaid 5 member Committee dated 15.11.2019. The aforesaid order is subject to mandatory statutory compliance under Section 95 of the Act, but without awaiting any such compliance by the Registrar, the respondent-Bank has accepted the same in its Board meeting dated 15.01.2020. The aforesaid Registrar namely Shri Dhananjay Dewangan IAS presided over the aforesaid Board meeting dated 15.01.2020 as Prescribed Officer and appears to have prevailed upon the Board Members of the Bank to accept his order dated 06.01.2020. Consequently, the impugned order vide No.Sthapana/Vetan/2019-20/3714 dated 22.01.2020 has been issued by the respondent-Bank, by which the Bank without any jurisdiction or authority under the Act has adversely impacted the service conditions of the petitioners and vide Clause 7 of the order, has decided that the annual increments payable to the employees including the petitioners would be dependent upon and subject to the Performance Evaluation done by the Managing Committee of the respondent-Bank. The employees have been forced by the respondent-Bank to submit their option forms 16 making it a condition precedent to get the annual increment. The petitioners have also submitted the option forms in the hope that their future annual increment (w.e.f 01.04.2021) may not get impaired for want of such option form. 18. It was further case of the petitioners that they were not granted the annual increment on 01.04.2021 when it became statutorily due. On 29-30.04.2021, the District Cooperative Central Bank Employees Union approached the Registrar and requested for sanctioning of the annual increment which was withheld contrary to the Rules 21(2) of the Service Rules. The Union also highlighted that the restriction of withholding annual increment has been implemented only in the Raipur Branch of the Bank and in other branches, the annual increments are being granted, but no action was taken by the Registrar. However, on the Board meeting dated 07.09.2021, the Board of Directors of the Bank resolved that the proposal for relaxing the condition imposed vide order dated 06.01.2020 be sent to the Registrar. Accordingly, the proposals in compliance of the resolution of the Board of the respondent-Bank were sent to the Registrar on 21.09.2021 and 17.12.2021, but since, no action has been taken, some employees of the respondent-Bank have approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing WPS No.5783/2022, in which vide order dated 12.09.2022, a direction has been given to the State as also the respondent-Bank to file detailed affidavit showing material consideration behind the aforesaid amendment order 17 dated 06.01.2020. In the meantime, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies has issued the impugned order dated 15.03.2023, by which the provision of annual increment itself has been deleted and substituted with restrictive provisions of getting annual increment only upon discretion of the respondent-Bank. 19. The petitioners in WPS No.2171/2024 earlier challenged the aforesaid order dated 06.01.2020 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies by way of separate writ petitions, but due to subsequent events, the writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 24.11.2023 reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to approach the State Government. The State Government vide common order dated 11.03.2024 has rejected the representation of the petitioners upholding the order dated 06.01.2020. The said order was also under challenge along with other orders as mentioned above before the learned Single Judge, mainly on the grounds that the impugned orders of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies are not in conformity with the provisions of Sections 55(1) read with Section 95(3) of the Act. Secondly, that the impugned orders of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies are in violation of the Rules 21(2) and 57 of the Service Rules and thirdly, that the impugned orders issued by the Registrar Cooperative Societies and the Bank are in violation of the principles of natural justice. 20. At this stage, the provisions of Section 55 of the Act, 1960 needs to be extracted to appreciate the arguments raised by learned 18 counsel for the parties. The relevant provisions are as under :- “55. Registrar's power to determine conditions of employment in societies. (1) The Registrar may, from time to time, frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a society or class of societies and the society or class of societies to which such terms and conditions of employment are applicable shall comply with the order that may be issued by the Registrar in this behalf. Provided that in the case of co-operative credit structure, the Registrar may frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment on the basis of the guidelines specified by the National Bank. (2) Where a dispute, including a dispute regarding terms of employment working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, arises between a society and its employees, the Registrar or any officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees: Provided that the Registrar or the officer referred to above shall not entertain the dispute unless presented to him within thirty days from the date of order sought to be impugned: Provided further that in computing the period of limitation under the foregoing proviso, the time requisite for obtaining copy of the order shall be excluded. Provided also that the Registrar or the officer referred to above may admit dispute after the expiry of thirty days, if the applicant satisfy the Registrar or officer to above that he had sufficient cause for not referring the dispute within the stipulated time.” 19 21. Section 55(1) allows the Registrar to issue orders that societies must comply with regarding employment terms. While this could potentially include matters related to increments, the Registrar's ability to directly stop annual increments under this section depends on several factors: Specific Rules: Whether the rules framed by the Registrar under Section 55(1) specifically address the conditions and procedures for stopping increments. Nature of the Action: The reason for stopping the increment (e.g., disciplinary action, general policy, or financial reasons). If it's a disciplinary action, established procedures and the opportunity for the employee to be heard must be followed. Dispute Resolution: Section 55(2) of the Act outlines a process for resolving disputes concerning terms of employment, including disciplinary actions, with the Registrar's decision being binding. Ultimately, the legality of the Registrar stopping increments depends on the specific circumstances, adherence to the Act and rules, and whether due process is followed. While Section 55(1) provides the power to frame rules, a direct action to stop increments must align with those rules and principles of natural justice. 22. Section 95 of the Act, 1960 confers rule making power on the State Government, which reads as under :- 20 “95. Power to make rules. (1) The Government may, for the whole or any part of the State and for any society or class of societies, make rules for the conduct and regulation of the business of such society or class of societies and for carrying out all or any of the purposes of this Act. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may,- (a) subject to the provisions of Section 3 prescribe the delegation of powers vested in the Registrar to persons appointed to assist the Registrar and prescribe the manner of forwarding the copies of the proposed amendment of the bye-laws to the Registrar. (b) prescribe the forms to be used and the conditions to be complied with in the making of applications for the registration of a society and the procedure in the matter of such applications; (c) prescribe the matters in respect of which a society may make or the Registrar may direct a society to make, bye-laws and the procedure to be followed in making, altering and abrogating bye-laws and the conditions to be satisfied prior to such making, alteration or abrogation; (c-1) prescribe the period for the training of a member of a society and the manner of calling upon a member of a society to attend the course of training; (c-2) prescribe the manner of regulating the voting right of individual member of a federal society; (d) prescribe the procedure to be followed and conditions to be observed for change of name or liability, reorganisation or reconstruction of society; (e) prescribe the conditions to be complied with by a person applying for admission or admitted as a member and provide for the election and admission of members and the payment to be 21 made and the interest to be acquired before the exercise of the right of membership; (f) subject to the provisions of section 24, prescribe the maximum number of shares or portion of the capital of a society which may be held by a member; (g) provide for the withdrawal or removal of members and for the payments to them; (h) provide for the nomination of person to whom the share or the interest of a deceased member may be paid or transferred; (i) provide for ascertaining the value of a share or interest of a past members or deceased member; (j) prescribe the payments to be made and the conditions to be complied with by members applying for loans, the period for which loans may be made, and the amount which may be lent to an individual member; (j-1) prescribe the proportions for reservation of seats for members belonging to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and economaly weaker section on the committee of a resource society and provide for holding of an office of President/ Chairman or Vice-President/ Vice-Chairman of resource society by a member belonging to the aforesaid castes, tribes or section; (k) provide for the inspection of documents in the office of the Registrar or of any other officer or authority and the levy of fees for granting certified copies of the same; (l) provide for the formation and maintenance of a register of members and where the liability of the members is limited by shares, of a register of shares and a list of members; (m) provide for securing that the share capital of any society shall be variable in such a way as may be necessary to secure that the share shall 22 not appreciate in value and the necessary capital shall be available for the society as required; (n) prescribe the terms and conditions on which Government may make share capital contribution or give assistance, financial or other, to societies and the terms and conditions on which Government may guarantee the payment of the principal of and interest on debentures issued by societies or loans raised by them; (o) regulate the manner in which funds may be raised by a society or a class of societies by means of shares or debentures or otherwise and the quantum of funds so raised; (p) prescribe the manner of giving intimation to the Tahsildar about the details of the debt of outstanding demand owing to the society from a member, past member or deceased member; (q) prescribe the procedure by which a society shall calculate and write off bad debts; (r) provide for the formation and maintenance of reserve funds, and the objects to which such funds may be applied and for the investment and use of any fund including reserve fund under the control of a society; (s) prescribe the rate at which a society shall contribute towards the Chhattisgarh State Co- operative Union; (t) prescribe the mode of investment of funds of a society under section 44 and the proportion of investment in any security or class of securities; (u) provide for the payment of contribution to any provident fund which may be established by a society for the benefit of officers and servants employed by them and for the administration of such provident fund; (v) provide for general meetings of the members and the procedure at such meetings and the powers to be exercised by such meetings; 23 (w) provide for the appointment, suspension and removal of the members of the committee and other officers and for the appointment of a person or persons under section 53 and prescribe procedure at meetings of the committee and for the powers to be exercised and the duties to be performed by the committee, person or persons and other officers; (x) prescribe qualification and disqualification for members of the committee and employees of a society or class of societies and the conditions of service subject to which persons may be employed by societies; (y) prescribe the returns to be submitted by society to the Registrar and provide for the person by whom and the form in which such returns shall be submitted; (z) provide for the person by whom and the form in which copies of documents and entries in books of societies may be certified and the charges to be levied for the supply of copies thereof; (aa) prescribe the accounts and books to be kept by a society and provide for the audit of such accounts and the charges, if any, to be made for such audit, and for the periodical publication of a balance sheet showing the assets and liabilities of a society; (bb) provide for appointment of Registrar’s nominee or board of nominees, procedure to be followed in proceedings before the Registrar or his nominee or board of nominees, and for fixing and levying the expenses for determining the dispute and for enforcing the decisions or executing awards in such proceedings; (cc) provide for the issue and service of processes; (dd) prescribe the procedure for and the method of recovery of any sums due under this Act or the rules; 24 (ee) prescribe the procedure to be followed for the custody of property attached under section 68. (ff) Prescribe the procedure and conditions for the exercise of the powers conferred under Section 71 and the procedure to be followed by a liquidator and provide for the disposal of surplus assets; (gg) prescribe the procedure to be followed in presenting and disposal of appeals revisions and review. (ii) prescribe the method of communicating or publishing any order decision or award required to be communicated or published under this Act or the rules; and (jj) provide for all matters required or allowed by this Act to be prescribed by rules. (3) All rules made under this Act shall be laid on the table of Legislative Assembly. 23. Sub-section 95(2)(x) of the Act, 1960 enables the State Government to make rules to “prescribe qualifications for members of the committee and employees of a society or class of societies and the conditions of service subject to which persons may be employed by a society.” Thus, the Registrar is not the only authority to prescribe service conditions. The State Government is over and above the Registrar. The above power of the State/Registrar are not independent discretionary power without any check and balance but the same is subject to the will of the people in the manner of laying down requirement under Section 95(3) of the Act, 1960. 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dharmin Bai 25 Kashyap v. Babli Sahu and Others reported in (2023) 10 SCC 461, while dealing with the issue of statutory remedy where a right or a liability is created by a statute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, has observed in para-13 as follows :- “13. It is well-settled principle of law that where a right or a liability is created by a statue, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by the statue must be availed of. It is also well settled salutary principle that if a Statue provides for doing a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. In Cherukuri Mani v. State of A.P. (2015) 13 SCC 722, it is observed that: (SCC p. 727, para 14) “14. “where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it shall be done in the same manner following the provisions of law, without deviating from the prescribed procedure.” 25. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, it transpires that the learned Single Judge, while allowing the said batch of writ petitions, by placing reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Director (Admn and HR) KPTCL (supra), Balco Captive Power Plant Mazdoor Sangh (supra), Hemant Kumar Ganga Prasad Gupta (supra), Hukamchand Mills Karmachari Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha (supra) has observed that since the impugned orders dated 06.01.2020 and 15.03.2023 have been issued by the Registrar, 26 Cooperative Societies in the nature of amendment in the Service Rules, the laying down requirement as prescribed under the Act is required to be followed strictly in accordance with law. The Rules must be followed what has been prevailed and without compliance of such requirement, the impugned orders would not have statutory force so as to effect any change in service conditions of writ petitioners such as denial of annual increment. The Registrar, while exercising powers under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960 is required to follow with the procedure prescribed in law when the same is resulting in taking away of accrued right of the employees. There is nothing on record to show that such legal procedure has been followed by the respondents before taking away the accrued rights of the writ petitioner to receive annual increment upon completion of service of one year and accordingly, held the impugned orders dated 06/01/2020 and 15/03/2023 issued by the Registrar Cooperative Societies to be violative to the mandatory requirement of law and do not have statutory force to effect any change in service conditions of the writ petitioner to receive annual increment. It was further held by the learned Single Judge that the Registrar while passing the impugned order dated 06/01/2020 has not considered the bar provided under Rule 57 of the Service Rules and has straightaway restricted the accrued right of the writ petitioners and hence, the impugned order is contrary to the Service Rules. Holding so, the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 has 27 been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order under appeal (Annexure A/1) and by quashing the orders dated 15/03/2023 and 06/01/2020 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh and the order dated 22/01/2020 issued by the District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Raipur, and further quashing the order dated 11/03/2024 upholding the order dated 06/01/2020, it has been held that the writ petitioners are entitled for annul increments w.e.f. 01/04/2021. 26. The case law cited by the appellants do not answer the questions regarding non-compliance of the procedure under Section 95(3) of the Act, 1960 and the specific statutory bar under Rule 21(2) of the Service Rules barring the denial/stoppage of annual increment by way of order only. 27. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / respondent No.1 herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 28. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra