Mukesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:37204

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 551 of 2020

¶6

1 - Ramnarayan Raje S/o Late Shri Bhaskar Prasad Raje Aged About 65 Years R/o Sahdev Nagar, Near Lav Provision Store, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

--- Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of CoOperative Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Chhattisgarh Block- 3, Second And Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Bank Maryadit (Apex Bank), Sahkar Bhawan, Sector - 24, Plot No. 76, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

--- Respondents

¶13

WPS No. 693 of 2020

¶14

1 - Mukesh Kumar Jain S/o Rupchand Jain Aged About 65 Years R/o New Adarsh Nagar, Plot No. - 4, Street 1d, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

--- Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of CoOperative Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

2

¶19

2 - Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Chhattisgarh Block- 3, Second And Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶20

3 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Bank Maryadit (Apex Bank), Sahkar Bhawan, Sector- 24, Plot No. 76, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶21

--- Respondents

¶22

WPS No. 691 of 2020

¶23

1 - Fagulal Ballarkhede S/o Late Shri Rupram Ballarkhede Aged About 66 Years Resident Of Village Sahaki, Post Kalimati, Tahsil Lanji, District Balaghat,(M.P.),

¶24

--- Petitioner

¶25

Versus

¶26

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of CoOperative Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan. Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶27

2 – Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Chhattisgarh Block-3, Second And Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶28

3 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Bank Maryadit (Apex Bank), Sahkar Bhawan, Sector - 24, Plot No. 76, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶29

--- Respondents

¶30

For Petitioners	: Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Mr. Amandeep Singh, PL
For Respondent No.3 in	: Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate
WPS No.551/2020 & WPS
No.693/2020
For Respondent No.3 in	: Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate
WPS No.691/2020

¶31

3

¶32

( Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi )

¶33

Order on Board

¶34

30/07/2025

¶35

Since issue involved in all the writ petitions is similar, they are being heard and decided by this common order.

¶36

Heard on admission.

¶37

These writ petitions are preferred by petitioners seeking following relief:-

¶38

“(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to setaside amended rule/order dated 23.10.2017 (Annexure P1) and petitioner may be granted all the service benefit and retiral benefit of Assistant General Manager/ Deputy General Manager with arrears and interest of 12%, in the interest of justice.

¶39

(ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier petitioners were posted on the post of Deputy General Manager and Assistant General Manager respectively; in the Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, Raipur. As per the policy of the State Government, aforesaid bank was merged into the Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Bank, Raipur (Apex Bank) vide order dated 07.10.2014. After merger, status of petitioners’ posts was reduced and they were posted on the posts of Assistant General

¶41

4

¶42

Manager/ Manager, in the Apex Bank and as of now all the petitioners have been retired. He further submits that since status of their posts was reduced in the Apex Bank, they were getting less benefit in respect of retiral dues. Hence, he prays that respondents may be directed to grant all service benefits and retiral benefits to them along with arrears and interest of 12%.

¶43

Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 while referring to his reply submits that though after merger of the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, Raipur into the Apex Bank, status of posts of petitioners was reduced, but, salary and other benefits were not reduced, rather they were getting higher salary than the posts they were holding in the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, Raipur. He next submits that grievance of the petitioners has not been specifically pleaded rather, pleading is very vague, therefore, the instant petitions are liable to be rejected.

¶44

Learned State counsel has not filed reply, but, he has extended his support to the contentions made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

¶45

I have considered the facts of the case and taken into consideration submission putforth by both the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶46

Petitioners have sought for setting aside of amended Rule / Order dated 23.10.2017 (Annexure P1) whereby after merger of the Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, Raipur into the Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Bank, Raipur (Apex Bank) status of their earlier post as the Assistant General

¶47

5

¶48

Manager/ Deputy General Manager respectively; was reduced because of which they were suffering monetary loss, but, nothing has been pleaded by the petitioners and no document has been filed to demonstrate the fact that after merger and reduction in status of their posts, they have suffered any monetary loss, as salary and other emoluments were reduced and even after their retirement they are getting less monetary benefits. The grievance of the petitioners is not clear from their pleading, as the same is very vague as nothing has been pleaded by them as to what salary they were getting prior to merger and how much their salary and other emoluments were reduced after merger.

¶49

Having considered the aforesaid facts of the cases, no case for interference of this Court invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction is made out, therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.

¶50

In view of above, pending IA(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶51

( Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) JUDGE

¶52

Ayushi

¶53

Digitally signed by AYUSHI AYUSHI SINGH SINGH Date:2025.08.01 11:19:10 +0530

Mukesh Kumar Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra Kumar Vs Smt. Sindhu Baghel @ Payal

Sachin Agrawal Vs Government of India

Ashok Kumar Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramnarayan Raje Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Fagulal Ballarkhede Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Executive Engineer (O and M)(Wrongly Mentioned in Impugned Order as Chief Executive Engineer) Vs Smt. Ramkumari