NADIM MOHLE v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary To the Government Department of Chhattisgarh

: Mr. D.K. Swain, Advocate : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

02.2025

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to take necessary steps for reopening of Priyadarshini Suwidha Swa Sewa Kendra, Korba immediately or else adjust the employees in some other places.

10.2. the Respondents may be directed to pay the 2 dues of the petitioner and other employees immediately so that their families can be saved.

10.3 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court feels deem and proper, in view of the situation, may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. The facts of the present case are as under:- A. The petitioner was an employee of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangha Maryadit (for short, Sangha). He was posted as Branch Manager at Priyadarshini Suvidha Swa-Sewa Kendra, Korba (for short, Priyadarshini Kendra). The services of the petitioner were transferred from Bilaspur to Korba vide order dated 21.08.2012. The petitioner joined his services on 27.08.2012. B. It is further contended that the Priyadarshini Kendra was not properly financed by the head office; therefore, the creditors stopped the supply due to non-payment of their dues. The matter was brought to the notice of the police, and the Priyadarshini Kendra was locked on

09.04.2014. It is further stated that the petitioner and other employees have not been paid their salaries since March 2014. C. It is also stated in the petition that the petitioner made various representations, but no action was taken. Therefore, WPS No. 1366 of 2017 was filed, which was disposed of on 07.04.2017, directing respondent No.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of six months. Further, a liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition before this Court if his grievance remained unredressed. The petitioner made a representation, which was rejected vide order dated 23.10.2017. 3

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a regular employee of the Sangha. He further submits that without any rhyme or reason, the salaries were stopped by respondent No.3. He further contends that Priyadarshini Kendra, Korba, is a part of respondent No.3, and despite its closure, the petitioner and other employees are entitled to receive their salaries. He also submits that respondent No.3, without considering the facts of the case, rejected the representation vide order dated 23.10.2017. Thus, he prays for the quashing of the order dated

23.10.2017 and for a direction to respondent No.3 to make payment of the salary of the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, opposes the submissions made by Mr. Swain and submits that the petitioner was never appointed by respondent No.3. She further contends that the petitioner never received a salary from respondent No.3. It is argued that the petitioner failed to produce an order of appointment to substantiate his claim that he was appointed by respondent No.3.

5. It is also contended that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to raise a dispute in accordance with the Act of 1960. She prays that the petition be dismissed, stating that the Priyadarshini Kendra was a separate entity that was closed in March 2014. The employees of that Priyadarshini Kendra were receiving their salaries from the income of the committee; after the closure of the Priyadarshini Kendra, they could not receive salaries in the absence of any income; thus, she would pray that the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Mr. Lav Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, endorses 4 the submissions made by Ms. Aditi Singhvi.

7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents.

8. In the present case, the petitioner has not placed any substantial document to demonstrate that he was appointed by respondent No.3. He has placed an order of transfer dated 21.08.2012, wherein he was transferred from Bilaspur to Priyadarshini Kendra, Korba. However, the petitioner has not placed any bylaws to demonstrate that he was an employee or was appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post.

9. Respondent No.3, while deciding the representation, has considered the grounds and reasons assigned therein. It is not in dispute that Priyadarshini Kendra was closed in the year 2014. In the absence of any relevant document, it cannot be presumed that after the closure of Priyadarshini Kendra, the services of the petitioner were required to be absorbed by respondent No.3. Further, an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner.

10. The present petition has been filed against a cooperative society. A cooperative society is not a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to the law, if so advised. Sd/- NADIM (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge