1 2026:CGHC:23797 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7873 of 2022 1 - Kuldeep Chandrakar S/o Ramavtar Chandrakar Aged About 37 Years R/o Dhobghatti, Tahsil- Pandariya, Police Station- Pandatarai, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, Mo. No. 6264930049 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of The Co-Operative, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, P.S.- Kewli, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Collector, Kabirdham District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Society Kabirdham District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 4 - Authorized Officer/chairman, Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Kodwagodan Tahsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, Its Regd. No. 2241 ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. RCS Deo Samant, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.06.2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records regarding present case from respondent authority. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 04.11.2022 passed by respondent no. 4 (Annexure- P/1) and order passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure-P/2) and further be pleased to quash the order dated 04.11.2022 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure-P/4), is in the interest of justice. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be -2- pleased to direct the respondent authority to allow the work to the petitioner, is in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was holding the post of Data Entry Operator under respondent No.4. He would further submit that services of the petitioner were terminated by respondent No.4 and said order has been affirmed by Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society Kabirdham and Additional Collector Kabirdham vide Annexure P/2 & P/4. He would contend that no departmental inquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and therefore, order passed by respondent No.4 dated 04.11.2022 is bad in law. He would fairly submit that the petitioner should have approached the Registrar Cooperative Society according to the provisions of Section 55(2) of the Chhatisgarh Cooperative Society Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act of 1960’) but he preferred writ petition assailing the above-stated orders. He would contend that an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 24.11.2022 and he is still working on the post of Data Entry Operator. He would submit that the petitioner may be granted opportunity to raise a dispute before the Registrar/Additional Registrar/Deputy Registrar according to the provisions of Section 55(2) of the Act of 1960 within a reasonable time. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondents/State would oppose submissions. He would submit 3 that no writ can be issued against Cooperative Society, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. He would contend that writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was holding the post of Data Entry Operator under respondent No.4. His services were terminated by respondent No.4 and said order has been affirmed by Deputy Registrar and Additional Collector Kabirdham vide Annexure P/2 and P/4. It is also apparent that no inquiry was conducted in accordance with the service Rules and an interim order is operating in favour of the petitioner, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to raise a dispute according to the provisions of Section 55(2) of the Act of 1960 along with an application for grant of stay before the competent Authority within a period of 60 days from today and in turn, the authority concerned is directed to decide the application for grant of stay within further period of 60 days. For a period of 120 days, the interim order granted on 24.11.2022 shall remain operative. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of at admission stage. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha