WRn'pETmcw NO. 2-4 &^~ Q<m -- <^c4- PETTITQNER: '^r. J^~/ Sa^raieo Mshra v. RESPONIBENTS: f-1. Jila Sahkari Kri&bi aeai QraBain Vikas Bank Maqradit BflasrpiBr
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATU^. .M' jmASFUR (^irs^- (CHEHTISQAKBS ffiRITPE'imON N0. ^4 PE1TTTQNER: Saty^leo A' Mishra, ^..-^ K,' ^' g%^'y/ serrioe, Gie MaryaditB ,.<s%^^^'v ~~~~~~~"~^ ^'T-.N,^ .tf(©^ Sffl'kanda, / (Chhattisgj ^^ ^•^ •^>" ^- VERSU8 *?? KBSPQNCENTS: (-1. J~da Sahk] Maryadit -<1 ^ Deptifey 1 IE wRmyE3aas INEaAFOEl WRITS.CaBfflg f^'1 PABFmHIABa cause'title aboys. ^^3^^^i? PAKFICULARS title above. Krf.atii tCi^i.y PAKHCULAES OF THE OK ISBEINGMAKEOUBJECT? petition is not being inade a< made bsii^ a®riCTredIqr ^ie i not decaduig the r^reaenta respaadeat no. 1 ndt payinf petitfoDfic. The petititma; wl Baak wasteanmated firuni t] j 1 approadied the Deputy fieg 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2485 of 2003 Petitioner Salyadeo Mishra Respondents Versus _ JUa Sahkari Krishi Evam Gramin Vikas Bauk aiid others. Single Bench ; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotrl. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, couiisel for the petitkiner.
Shri Rajeev Shnvastava, counsel for respondent No. 1. Shri Rakesh Anfhony, eounsel for respondent No.4. Shri P.S. Koshy, Depufy Advocate General for respondents No.2 and 3. ORALORDER (15fh Febmaiy, 2.006) uy- ^ The fqUowiag order of the Court was passed by Satish K. Aguihotri, J. The petitioner was workmg on the post of clerk ia RespDndent/Barik. The services of the petitioner was terminated by order dated 11.9.79. Thepetitionerhas nioved fhe authorities under fhe provisions of M.P.Cooperative Soeietics Act 1960. The Deputy Registrar by oider dated 16.8.1984 declared the tennination order of the petitioner as iavalid aad directed the respondeut No. 1 to reiustete the petitioner ia service wifh aU consequential benefit. The Joiut Registrar, by order dated 14.10.91, iip-held the findiags and order passed by the Depiily Registear, aad disinissed the appeal with sbme modification to the extent fhat the respondent bank would re'instate the petitioner into his servicc without payineat of back wages and alloiwances on the basis of priaciples ofDO work HO pay.
The Board of Revenue ia appeal filed by fhe Bazilc as weU as petitioncr by order 26th March, 1999, allowed the appeal Qf the pctitioner herein. and disniissed fhe appeal ffled by respondent baiik restoring the order passed by Depuly RegistTaT, / . Thereafter the Respondent/Banli: preferred writ petition under ArtiGle 226/227 against oider passed by the Board of Revenue, beiag W.P. No.3225/99 in the High Coiirt of Judicature, at Jabalpur. By order dated 27.9.1999 said writ petition of fhe Respondent/Bank was disinissed ia Itmine. Thereafter the petitioner filed anv application before fhe Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies under Section 85 of M.&. Cooperative Societies Act 1960 for recoveiy of the back wages due to the petitioner. The said application (Annexure P-13) is stiU pending for consideration before the Deputy Registiar, Gooperative Societies. In view of the fact that petitioner has siicceeded in the jndicial proceediugs which culminated to fhe order dated 27.9.1999 of the Hi^h Court of M.P. in W.P. No.3225/99, the petition.er has ffled ttus petition seekuig a direction against fhe Deputy Registrar to issue recoveiy certificate.
In the facts and circuinstauces of fhe case, the Depiily Registrar is du-ected to consider and decide fhe application ffled by fhe petitioner on 1.2.2002 and pass appropriate orier ia accordaace with law wifhin a period of six weeks 610111 the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. In view of fhe foregoing petition stands disposed o£ No order as to the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh applieatioii costs. However, the siibseqiient bringuig into notice of Deputy Registrar about developinent to fhe efifect that icspondent No. l has been reoi^anized
by the order dated 12(tl November, 2001, (Annexure R-l). The petitioner is further at liberty fo claim. interest and cost in. accordance ^. wifh law. /— Sd/'- Satish K. Agnii iK.As Judge • •l R!l 5SI 'KS KB KS <!Wl
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.