1 CGHC010048092020 2026:CGHC:28401 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 18 of 2020 Danteshwari Maiyya, Shakkar Karkhana Karmachari Union, Balod, Tahsil And District - Balod ( C.G.) Registration No. 493, ( Affiliated With Hind Mazdoor Sabha ) Official Address - Danteshwari Maiyya Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana Limited, Kakrabhat Balod, Through General Secretary Gaindlal Sahu, Aged Abou 43 Years, S/o Shri Phool Chand Sahu, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1- State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Labour And Employment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary, Cooperative Department State Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Registrar, Cooperative Societies Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector, Balod, District - Balod Chhattisgarh. 5 - Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durg, District - Durg Chhatisgarh. 6 - Labour Officer, Balod, District - Balod Chhattisgarh. 7- Managing Director, Danteshwari Maiyya Shakkar Karkhana Limited, Kakrabhat, Balod, District - Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Shruti Rai, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the office of the respondents by issuing a writ of certiorari and after perusal of the record further be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus against the respondent No.6 to decide the representation dated 09.12.2019 keeping in mind the annexed representation submitted before various respondents preferably within a period of 30 days, in the ends of justice. 10.4 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Ms. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the General Secretary of Danteshwari Maiyya Shakkar Karkhana Karmachari Union, Balod. She would further submit that the members of the Union have been working for many years under the Danteshwari Maiyya Shakkar Karkhana, but till date their services have not been regularized on account of qualifying guidelines contained under Rule 21 of the Model Service Rules, 2009, which prescribe that the Daily Crushing Capacity should be 1250 Tonnes Crushing Daily (TCD). She would contend that the workers of the Union are not responsible for fulfilling the above parameter; rather, the management should take the necessary steps. She would further argue that respondent No. 7, the Managing Director, Danteshwari Maiyya Shakkar Karkhana, Balod, wrote a letter to respondent No. 3, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, on 19.12.2013 recommending the deletion of 3 Points No. 2 & 4 of Rule 21 of the Rules, 2009, but till date no decision has been taken. She would submit that the petition may be allowed and respondent No.6 may be directed to take a decision on the representation made by the petitioner on 09.12.2019. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that respondent No. 6 has no authority of law to amend the Rules as framed by respondent No.7. He would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 4. Having considered the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is, at this juncture, disposed of with a direction to respondent No.6, as prayed for, to decide the pending representation dated 09.12.2019, preferably within a period of 150 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this writ petition is hereby disposed of. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim