1 2026:CGHC:26850 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 916 of 2023 Hemant Kumar Pal S/o Shri Goverdhan Pal Aged About 34 Years Village - Sonadih, Thana - Karhi, Tahsil And District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Registrar, Department Of Chhattisgarh Co- Operatives Societies, Block - 3 Second And Third Flour Indrawati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 2 - President Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Mardyadit Kesala. Registration No. 1479, Village - Kesala Tahsil And District - Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh, 493332 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. RK Verma, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Ujjwal Choubey, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 01.07.2026 1. Heard. 2. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking issuance of a direction to the respondent authorities to release the salary withheld for the period from 18.09.2018 to 29.10.2022, i.e. the date on which the petitioner was reinstated into employment. 3. Facts of the case, in brief are that, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Data Entry Operator by respondent No.2 on 14.9.2007, against a BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.07.03 10:27:48 +0530 2 temporary post. He continued to discharge his duties until 18.09.2018, when his services were terminated by respondent No. 2 through an oral order. Aggrieved by the said termination, the petitioner raised service dispute before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act 1960’). The Deputy Registrar vide Order dated 06.04.2021 (Annexure-P/2) allowed the petitioner's claim and directed his reinstatement in employment along with payment of back wages. The order dated 06.04.2021 was challenged by respondent No. 2 by filing an appeal under Section 78(1) of the Act of 1960 before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 26.10.2021, whereby the order passed by the Deputy Registrar was set aside. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Tribunal, Bilaspur (Camp Court, Raipur), challenging the order of the Joint Registrar. The learned tribunal partly allowed the appeal by upholding the order of reinstatement of the petitioner in employment, however, his claim for back wages during the termination period was denied on the principle of “no work, no pay”. Aggrieved by the denial of back wages for the period from 18.09.2018 to 29.10.2022, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking the relief stated in the opening paragraph. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had rendered service for about 11 years prior to the termination of his employment in the year 2018. Despite that, his services were terminated by respondent No. 2 merely through an oral order, which was illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that the petitioner was ultimately reinstated in employment pursuant to the impugned order passed by the learned tribunal and joined his duties on 29.10.2022. He further submits that immediately after his termination on 3 18.09.2018, the petitioner repeatedly requested respondent No. 2 to permit him to continue discharging his duties as Data Entry Operator; however, the authorities of respondent No. 2 did not allow him to do so. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner cannot be deprived of his wages for the period from the date of his termination till the date of his reinstatement, as he was always willing to work but was prevented from doing so by the respondents. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present writ petition be allowed and the reliefs sought therein be granted. 5. Respondent No.2, who is the main contesting party, has filed its reply. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, referring to its reply, would submit that, while the petitioner was posted at Primary Credit Co-operative Society, Kesla, Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, he, along with other employees of the society, was found to have embezzled/misappropriated an amount of Rs.9,75,000/-. It is submitted that the said financial irregularities came to light during an enquiry conducted by a team of officers of the Society, which submitted its enquiry report on 05.10.2018 (Annexure R-2/1), holding the petitioner and other employees responsible for the alleged embezzlement/misappropriation. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner admitted the aforesaid allegations by submitting a written communication dated 14.09.2018 (Annexure R-2/4). Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.2 was intending to lodge First Information Report against the petitioner. Apprehending such action, the petitioner absented himself from duty with effect from 18.09.2018. Despite repeated communications calling upon him to join his duties, he failed to report for work. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner raised a service dispute under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 only after a lapse of about nine months before the Deputy Registrar, 4 Co-operative Societies, Raipur. Learned counsel further submits that if the petitioner's services had been terminated orally, as alleged, he would have challenged the same within the prescribed period of 30 days under Section 55(2) of the Act of 1960. It is, therefore, submitted that since the petitioner himself remained absent from duty during the period from 18.09.2018 to 29.10.2022, he is not entitled to claim salary for the said period, as he was not regular employee of respondent No.2, rather he was a contingency employee, hence, it is prayed that the petition deserves to be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the State supports the contention made by learned counsel for respondent No.1. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The petitioner has not disclosed in the writ petition the nature of his employment, namely, whether he was appointed as a permanent employee, temporary employee, contingency employee, or daily-wage employee. Even during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to apprise the Court about the nature of the petitioner's appointment. 9. Annexure-R-2/1 is the enquiry report submitted by a team of officers of the Co-operative society, wherein it has been recorded that the petitioner, along with other employees of the society, had embezzled/misappropriated an amount of Rs.9,75,000/- of the society. Annexure-R-2/4 is an application filed by the petitioner to the President/Director of the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, Kesla, wherein, he has admitted aforesaid embezzlement/misappropriation. 10. It is the case of the petitioner that his services were terminated by the respondent authorities through an oral order with effect from 18.09.2018. Had that been the position, the petitioner ought to have raised a service dispute 5 under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, within the prescribed period of 30 days. However, the petitioner raised a service dispute only on 09.07.2019, i.e., after a lapse of nearly nine months from the date on which he claims to have been orally terminated. This conduct of the petitioner in approaching the competent authority after such an inordinate delay shows that the petitioner himself remained absent from duty. Furthermore, as per the observation made by the Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Tribunal in the impugned order, the petitioner was repeatedly called upon to join his duties, but he failed to do so. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner rejoined service only on 29.10.2022, pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal on 09.09.2022. Apart from the above, the petitioner has failed to disclose the nature of his appointment and also failed to satisfactorily explain the delay in raising the service dispute. Further, Annexure R-2/4 indicates that the petitioner had admitted the allegations relating to the embezzlement/ misappropriation referred by respondent No. 2. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of salary/back wages for the period from 18.09.2018 till the date of his rejoining, i.e., 29.10.2022. 12. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 13. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini