1 CGHC010274742026 2026:CGHC:38944 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6250 of 2026 1 - Umashankar Tiwari S/o Shri Akharam Tiwari, Aged About 62 Years Assistant Accountant (The Then In-Charge Branch Manager), Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Chandrapur, District - Sakti (C.G.)(Suspended And Now Retired), R/o Tiwari Sadan, Patrakar Colony Road, Waed No. 64, Mahamaya Nagar, Sanjog Vatika, V.T.C.- Birkona, Post Birkona, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary Cooperative Societies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Commissioner, Cooperative And Registrar Of Cooperative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District -Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Jiont Commissioner, Cooperative And Registrar Of Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur Division -Bilaspur , Tehsil Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Deputy Commissioner, Cooperative And Registrar Of Cooperative Societies, Sakti -Tehsil Sakti District -Sakti (C.G.) 5 - Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Sahkar Bhawan, Nehru Chauk, Bilaspur, Tehsil - Bilaspur, District -Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - The President, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Bilaspur, Tehsil -Bilaspur, District -Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 7 - The Branch Manager, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Chandrapur, District -Sakti (C.G.) 8 - The Nodal / Assistant Nodal Officer, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Sakti , District -Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Ms. Apurva Nigam, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.5 to 8 : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 02/09/2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order of punishment dated 29.06.2026, issued from the office of respondent No. 5, whereby the petitioner’s pay scale has been reduced as a consequence of his demotion and he has further been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,63,101/- by way of challan within a period of 15 days. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for respondents raised an objection with regard to maintainability of writ petition on the ground that petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy available to him to file dispute/proceeding before the Registrar under Section 55 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (In short ‘the Act, 1960’). He also contended that petitioner could have also submitted an application/appeal under Rule 65 of the Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Seva Niyam. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that this provision under 3 Seva Niyam is applicable only when some order of punishment is inflicted upon petitioner after department enquiry proceedings or to challenge the enquiry proceedings. He also submits that proceedings U/s. 55 (2) of the Act, 1960 will also not apply, however, he could not substantiate his submission in this regard. 4. Provision U/s. 55 (2) of the Act, 1964 reads as under :- “5. Registrar’s power to determine conditions of employment in societies – (1) x x x x [(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 an 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 4 requisite for obtaining copy of the order shall be excluded.” 5. Petitioner is aggrieved with the order of punishment, which will come within the working conditions and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner is having the remedy U/s. 55 (2) of the Act,1960 to raise dispute before the jurisdictional authorities. 6. For the foregoing discussions I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition as petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy under the Act, 1960. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioner will be at liberty to avail the other alternate remedy available to her under the law. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep