-1- 2025:CGHC:40999 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6449 of 2021 Smt. Sunita Jha W/o Shri Govind Jha Aged About 64 Years R/o Samta Colony, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary Cooperative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur (C.G.). 2- Raipur Sahakari Karmachari Mitvyayi Samiti Marayadit Registration No. 746, Through Its President Raipur Sahakari Karmachari Mitvyayi Samiti Marayadit, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.). 3- Manager Raipur Sahakari Karmachari Mitvyayi Samiti Marayadit, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.). 4- Registrar Cooperative Society Chhattisgarh, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.). 5- Deputy Registrar Cooperative Siceity, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Kabir Kalwani, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.08.2025 -2- 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1] . That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, quashing the impugned order dated 17.09.2021, passed by Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Tribunal Bilaspur, passed in Appeal No. 39/2019 and the order of the Registrar dated 07.05.2019 may kindly be restore and petitioner may kindly be granted all the consequential benefits including the salary of 4 years and other benefits which were extended to the similarly placed Class-IV employees. 2] 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.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Class-IV employee under the Raipur Sahakari Karmachari Mitvyayi Samiti Maryadit, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Samiti”), vide order dated 04.12.2000. His services were regularized upon completion of the probation period. It is contended that, as per the applicable service rules, the age of retirement for Class-IV employees is 62 years; however, the Samiti passed an order of superannuation dated 31.12.2015, retiring the petitioner before the completion of the age of 62 years, particularly at the age of 58 years. The petitioner raised a dispute under Section 55 of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, before the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar, vide order dated 07.10.2016, dismissed the dispute. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Registrar, which was allowed by order dated 29.05.2017, and the matter was remitted back to the Deputy Registrar for fresh consideration. He -3- would contend that upon remand, the Deputy Registrar again dismissed the dispute on 26.07.2018; against the said order, an appeal was preferred and the same was allowed by the Registrar on 07.05.2019. The respondent, Samiti, thereafter filed a second appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Tribunal, which was allowed on 17.09.2021, thereby setting aside the Registrar’s order. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the age of retirement for Class-IV employees in cooperative societies is 62 years, and the respondent failed to produce any document to prove that the age of retirement was 58 years. It is argued that the Tribunal committed an error of law in allowing the second appeal and that the order of the Registrar dated 07.05.2019 deserves to be restored. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not produced any by-laws or service rules applicable to the Samiti to establish that the retirement age of class IV employees was 62 years. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already crossed the age of 62 years and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 6) It is admitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Class-IV employee under the Samiti on 04.12.2000, and his services were regularized on 27.09.2003. He -4- was superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.12.2015. 7) The Registrar, while allowing the appeal on 07.05.2019, relied on certain notifications of the State Government, whereby the age of superannuation was enhanced from 58 to 60 years. The State Government vide notification dated 31.8.2013 enhanced the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years. The Registrar held that the employees of the cooperative societies are governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Rules and, therefore, these notifications would apply. 8) The Tribunal held that under Section 55 of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the Registrar has the power to make rules. Section 55(1) provides that such rules may govern various service conditions, including the retirement age. It was found that rules have not been framed by the Registrar under this provision prescribing the retirement age for Class-IV employees of cooperative societies. 9) The Tribunal further found that the petitioner failed to produce any relevant service rules or by-laws of the Samiti establishing that the age of superannuation was 62 years. Reliance placed by the Registrar on the State Government circulars/notifications was not supported by any evidence showing that such circulars were applicable to the employees of the cooperative societies or the Samiti. The Registrar’s conclusion was based on the State Government notifications applicable to the government employees. It is also held by the -5- learned Tribunal that there was nothing on record to show that these notifications were ever made applicable to cooperative society employees by framing rules under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960, or by any other valid method. 10) In the absence of any statutory rule, by-law, or notification specifically extending the retirement age of Class-IV employees of the cooperative societies to 62 years, the Tribunal’s conclusion cannot be interfered with. 11) In view of the above, I find no merit in the present writ petition. The impugned order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Tribunal, Bilaspur, does not call for interference. 12) The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim