Disposed¶34

Monitar Ram Kushwaha v. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Ambikapur

Chhattisgarh HC6 Apr 2025WPS/183/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Back wages; no work no pay; reinstatement; Samiti Sewak/Samiti Sevak; District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Ambikapur; C.G. Cooperative Societies Act 1960 Section 55(2); Deputy Registrar; Joint Registrar; Cooperative Tribunal; Appeal No. 36 of 2016; Appeal Case No. 98/2014; WP227 No. 618 of 2015; WP227 No. 833 of 2017; 6% interest; 50 days; WPS No. 183 of 2021; Bibhu Datta Guru, J.; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; retired employee; consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent bank to release the petitioner's back wages for the period 31.10.2001 to 28.02.2010 (date of retirement) with 6% interest, within 50 days. ¶34

Monitar Ram Kushwaha Vs District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Ambikapur — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondent bank to release the petitioner's back wages for the period 31.10.2001 to 28.02.2010 (date of retirement) with 6% interest, within 50 days.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a retired employee of the respondent bank, is entitled to a direction for payment of back wages with all consequential benefits and 6% interest. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

Since the Tribunal's order in favour of the petitioner was affirmed by this Court in WP227 No. 833 of 2017 vide order dated 11.02.2020, the petitioner is entitled to back wages for the period 31.10.2001 to the date of retirement, i.e. 28.2.2010.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The appeal decided by the Tribunal on 22.06.2017 (Appeal No. 36 of 2016) was filed by the petitioner questioning the particular part of the Deputy Registrar/Joint Registrar orders by which back wages were refused and the period declared as no work no pay.

¶31

Key takeaways

The other appeal, filed by the bank, was for reinstatement, and there was no dealing by the Tribunal about the back wages part in that appeal.ratio¶31
Entertainment of the appeal filed by the petitioner was just and proper, and the Tribunal rightly passed the order setting aside the part in which the Deputy Registrar declared the period as no work no pay and refused payment of back wages.ratio¶33
The respondent bank is directed to take necessary steps within a period of 50 days to release the back wages along with 6% interest.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bibhu Datta Guru, J.) disposed of a writ petition by a retired Samiti Sewak of District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Ambikapur, directing the bank to release his back wages for the period 31.10.2001 to 28.02.2010 (date of retirement) with 6% interest within 50 days. The Cooperative Tribunal's order dated 22.06.2017 in Appeal No. 36 of 2016, which set aside the no-work-no-pay portion of the Deputy Registrar/Joint Registrar orders and awarded back wages, had been affirmed by this Court in WP227 No. 833 of 2017 (order dated 11.02.2020). Rejecting the bank's objection — founded on para 7 of that order — that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to re-entertain and re-decide an appeal already decided (Appeal Case No. 98/2014, dismissed 22.12.2014), the Court found that the petitioner's appeal questioned only the back-wages/no-work-no-pay part while the bank's appeal concerned reinstatement, with no dealing of the back-wages part therein; entertainment of the petitioner's appeal was therefore 'just and proper'. Background: removal dated 15.07.1994 (dispute under S.55(2), C.G. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960) had been quashed and reinstatement with back wages directed by the Deputy Registrar (11.07.1997), followed by a course of appeals, remands and partial affirmances in which only back wages remained contested.

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:16172

¶3

Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.09
11:12:14
+0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

WPS No. 183 of 2021

¶7

1 Monitar Ram Kushwaha S/o Late Devidayal Kuswaha Aged About 68 Years Terminated Samiti Sewak, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja, Chhattisgarh R/o Village Bakalu, Post- Karji Darima Road, Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Ambikapur Through Chief Executive Officer Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Shishir Dixit, Advocate For : Shri Anurag Singh, Advocate Respondent(s)

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

07/04/2025

Heard.

By the present writ petition the petitioner who is a retired employee of the respondent/ District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Ambikapur has preferred the present writ petition seeking direction towards the respondents to make payment of back wages with all consequential benefits with 6% interest.

¶19

(a) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Samiti Sevak in Primary Society Silphili, dist Surguja. On 15.07.1994 the petitioner was removed from service, which was challenged by the petitioner by raising a dispute under section 55 (2) of the C.G. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1960’). The said dispute was dismissed by order dated 11.04.1996. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing an appeal and in the said appeal the case was remanded back on 07.12.1996 to Deputy Registrar. After remand the Deputy Registrar vide order dated 11.07.1997 quashed the order of removal dated 15.07.1994 and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner along with back wages.

¶20

(b) Against the order of Deputy Registrar dated 11.07.1997, the respondent/ District Cooperative Central Bank preferred an appeal before the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies. The Joint Registrar allowed the appeal vide order dated 28.08.1998 and the order of Deputy Registrar dated 11.07.1997 was set aside.

¶21

¶22

Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal and by order dated 16.11.2000, the case was remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to decide the departmental inquiry afresh after providing the final show cause notice and opportunity of hearing. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred writ petition bearing WP No. 2504/2001, and the same was disposed off by order dated 11.09.2009 with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal.

¶23

(c) On 28.03.2012, the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society allowed the appeal and quashed the order of removal dated 15.07.1994 but denied the back wages on the principle of no work no pay. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies and by order dated 16.07.2014 the order of Deputy Registrar was affirmed. The respondent/ bank preferred an appeal against the order of reinstatement of petitioner before the Joint Registrar and the same was dismissed by order dated 16.07.2014. Thereafter, the respondent/ bank preferred appeal before the C.G. Cooperative Tribunal Bilaspur wherein the order of Deputy Registrar dated 28.03.2012 was affirmed. The petitioner also preferred appeal against the order of Joint Registrar and the Deputy Registrar before the Cooperative Tribunal seeking payment of back wages and by order dated 22.06.2017 the Tribunal set aside the order of Joint Registrar and Deputy Registrar and ordered that the petitioner is entitled for back wages from 31.10.2001 to the date of retirement i.e.

¶24

¶25

28.02.2010 with all consequential reliefs with interest of 6% p.a. The respondent bank thereafter preferred WP227 No. 618 of 2015 against the order dated 22.12.2014 passed by Tribunal and WP227 No. 833 of 2017 against the order dated 22.06.2017 and both the cases were decided vide order dated 11.02.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the order that the petitioner is entitled for back wages, the respondents are not releasing the back wages to the petitioner till date.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent/ bank refers para 7 of the order of this court in WP227 No. 833 of 2017. The same is quoted herein below:-

¶27

“7. That when the order of Joint Registrar which was already challenged in Appeal Case No.98/2014 and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 22.12.2014, then without assigning any reason why another appeal was preferred which is registered as Appeal Case No.36/2016 and decided by the impugned order. Further, it is surprising to see that there is no reference made in the impugned order regarding the previous appeal filed and dismissed by the same Tribunal, therefore, this question is also present. It can be said that the learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to re-entertain the same appeal and re-decide the same by the impugned order, hence, the petition appears to be without any substance which is dismissed and disposed off at motion stage.”

¶28

¶29

By referring the Para 7, learned counsel for the respondent/ bank submits that as this Court has observed that once the tribunal has entertained the order of Joint Registrar and Deputy Registrar a separate appeal has been entertained though Tribunal was having no jurisdiction to re entertain and re-decide the same. Hence the order of Tribunal granting back wages to the petitioner is bad in law.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records and the pleadings.

¶31

It is not in dispute that the Cooperative Tribunal vide order dated 22.06.2017 ordered for back wages and the said order was challenged by the respondent/ bank before this court in WP227 No. 833 of 2017 which has been dismissed by order dated 11.02.2020 though there was an observation that without assigning any reason subsequent appeal has been entertained by the Tribunal and the tribunal has re-decided the same. It appears from the order of this Court in WP227 No. 833 of 2017 and the order of the Tribunal dated 22.06.2017 in appeal No. 36 of 2016, the said appeal was filed by the petitioner questioning the particular part of the order of Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar by which the Deputy registrar has refused to grant back wages declaring the said period as no work no pay and the other appeal which was filed by the bank, the same was for reinstatement and there was no dealing of the Tribunal about the back wages part and hence in my opinion the entertainment of the appeal filed by

¶32

¶33

the petitioner herein was just and proper and the Tribunal has rightly passed the order by setting aside the part in which the Deputy Registrar has declared the period as no work no pay and refused for payment of back wages and hence once the order of tribunal is in favour of the appellant which has been affirmed by this Court in WP227 No. 833 of 2017 vide order dated 11.02.2020 the petitioner is entitled for back wages for the period 31.10.2001 to till date of retirement i.e. 28.2.2010. The respondent bank is directed to take necessary steps within a period of 50 days to release the same along with 6 % interest.

¶34

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE

¶37

Jyoti

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioner, initially appointed as Samiti Sevak in Primary Society Silphili, dist. Surguja, was removed from service on 15.07.1994.¶19
Prior proceeding
Removal challenged by dispute under S.55(2), C.G. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960; dispute dismissed by order dated 11.04.1996.¶19
Prior proceeding
Petitioner appealed against the dismissal order; the case was remanded back to the Deputy Registrar on 07.12.1996.¶19
Prior proceeding
After remand, Deputy Registrar by order dated 11.07.1997 quashed the removal dated 15.07.1994 and directed reinstatement with back wages.¶19
Prior proceeding
Bank appealed before the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies; appeal allowed vide order dated 28.08.1998 and the Deputy Registrar's order dated 11.07.1997 was set aside.¶20
Prior proceeding
Second appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal: order dated 16.11.2000 remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to decide the departmental inquiry afresh after final show cause notice and opportunity of hearing.¶22
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's WP No. 2504/2001 against the Tribunal's order was disposed off by order dated 11.09.2009 with liberty to file appeal.¶22
Prior proceeding
On 28.03.2012 the Deputy Registrar allowed the appeal, quashed the removal dated 15.07.1994, but denied back wages on the principle of no work no pay.¶23
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's appeal before the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies: by order dated 16.07.2014 the Deputy Registrar's order was affirmed.¶23
Prior proceeding
Bank's appeal against the reinstatement before the Joint Registrar was dismissed by order dated 16.07.2014.¶23
Prior proceeding
Bank's further appeal before the C.G. Cooperative Tribunal Bilaspur: the Deputy Registrar's order dated 28.03.2012 was affirmed.¶23
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal seeking back wages: by order dated 22.06.2017 the Tribunal set aside the Joint Registrar and Deputy Registrar orders and held the petitioner entitled to back wages from 31.10.2001 to the date of retirement.¶23
Prior proceeding
Tribunal fixed the entitlement up to retirement on 28.02.2010 with all consequential reliefs and interest of 6% p.a.¶25
Prior proceeding
Bank preferred WP227 No. 618 of 2015 (against Tribunal order dated 22.12.2014) and WP227 No. 833 of 2017 (against order dated 22.06.2017); both were decided vide order dated 11.02.2020.¶25
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's counsel submitted that despite the back-wages order, the respondents had not released the back wages till date.¶25
Prior proceeding
Para 7 of this Court's order in WP227 No. 833 of 2017 (quoted in the judgment) observed that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to re-entertain and re-decide the same appeal (Appeal Case No. 36/2016) when an earlier appeal (Appeal Case No. 98/2014) had already been dismissed vide order dated 22.12.2014.¶27

Monitar Ram Kushwaha v. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Ambikapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monitar Ram Kushwaha v. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Ambikapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Pere Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Kumar Bhagat Vs Managing Director

Shashikant Dhiwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shyam Sunder Verma Vs S. Gopalakrishnan

Mrs. Jhal Kumari Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hitesh Kumar Sahu Vs Coal India Limited