Shrawan Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Through Its Managing Director, 6th Floor, Tower-C, Sector 21, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Bank Limited (Apex Bank) Through Its Commissioner And Registrar Cooperative Societies, OfÏce At Pandri, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Chief Executive OfÏcer, In Front Of Distt. Government Hospital, G.E. Road, Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited Balod, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Chief Executive OfÏcer, Dalli Chowk, Rajnandgaon Road, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

Society Manager Primary Co-Operative Society Limited, Guroor, Balod, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

--- Respondent(s)

¶16

Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.01.07 10:52:31 +0530

¶17

2

¶18

For Petitioner	: Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate
For Respondents/ State	: Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G.
For MARKFED	: Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3	: Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate

¶19

Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶20

Judgment on Board

¶21

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶22

06/01/2026

¶23

The present writ petitions have been filled for following reliefs:

¶24

10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned notice/ tender dated 19.08.2025 published by the respondent No. 2.

¶25

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of services of the petitioner along with all the consequential benefits.

¶26

10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioner has been continuously working on the post of Data Entry Operator since the year 2007 on daily wage basis, discharging their duties sincerely and efÏciently without any complaint or adverse

¶28

3

¶29

remark, to the satisfaction of their superior authorities. It is further submitted that as per the Primary Krishi Sakh Sahakari Societies Ke Sevayukton Ke Liye Sewaniyam, 2018 , framed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur, one post of Clerk-cum-Computer Operator has been sanctioned for each society. The petitioner is working against such vacant and sanctioned posts of Data Entry Operator since many years, and repeated representations have been made by the petitioners as well as by the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Employees Union, Raipur, requesting regularization of services of Data Entry Operators working in various societies. However, till date, no decision has been taken by the respondents on such representations. On the contrary, the respondent no. 2 has issued the impugned notice/tender inviting applications for filling up the posts of Data Entry Operator through outsourcing, which is arbitrary and unjustified. Hence, the present petition has been preferred.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ MARKFED submits that the petitioner is the employee of the respondent cooperative society and being the employee of the cooperative society, if any dispute is there the petitioner is having an alternative remedy to approach the Registrar under Section 55 (2) of the C.G. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

¶31

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto.

¶32

It is a well-settled principle of law that when a remedy is available,

¶33

4

¶34

writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily be exercised.

¶35

The Supreme Court in the matter of State of H.P. and Others v Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Another reported in (2005) 6 SCC 499 held that normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efÏcacious alternate remedy.

¶36

The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 172 , reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when a statutory forum is available and has not been availed.

¶37

In light of the above submission and settled legal position, this Court finds no reason to entertain the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when an efÏcacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as provided under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, if so advised.

¶38

Sd/Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶39

Jyoti

Shrawan Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrawan Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkhilawan Sahu Vs Executive Engineer Constru. and Anr.

Saurabh Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sonal Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Husn Ghritlahre Alias Dadu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lakshman Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh