Chattisgarh High Court
Prabhu Dayal Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 February, 2026
1
Digitally
signed NAFR
by
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SHAYNA
KADRI
WPS No. 5598 of 2023
1 - Prabhu Dayal Sahu S/o - Late Guman Singh Sahu Aged About 65
Years Assistant Samiti Prabandhak, Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit
Khurshipar, Tehsil Dongargaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Co-
Operative, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar,
Post Office Rakhi, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Additional Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Chhattigarh Off.
Vivekanand Complex Pension Bada, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Chhattigarh, Off. Vivekanand
Complex Pension Bada, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Rajnandgaon, Off. -
Collectorate Premises, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
5 - Samiti Prabandhak Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Khurshipar, Tah-
Dongargaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Raman Patel, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. S. S. Baghel, Advocate For State : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/02/2026
1. The present writ petition is being filed seeking following reliefs:- 2
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release all the dues e.g. salary, pension, gratuity, GPF, etc. with all consequential benefits along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of his actual entitlement.
10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice."
2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Vikreta (Seller) in respondent No. 5 Society on 14.04.1989 and was serving as Sahayak Samiti Prabandhak at the time of his termination on 04.10.2004. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to certain complaints allegedly made by villagers within the area of the co-operative society, an enquiry was conducted on 18.09.2004; however, the complaint was not directed against the petitioner but against the then Branch Manager, Shri P.L. Jangde. Despite this, the Enquiry Officer, without affording any opportunity of hearing or issuing any show- cause notice to the petitioner, submitted a report adverse to him. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the Manager of the District Cooperative Central Bank issued a direction dated 20.09.2004 to respondent No. 3, instructing that action be taken against the petitioner and indicating that his services be terminated without granting him any opportunity. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 convened a meeting on 04.10.2004 and resolved to terminate the 3 petitioner's services, which decision was communicated to him vide letter dated 06.10.2004. Aggrieved by the said termination, the petitioner instituted a dispute under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 read with Rule 65 of the Employee Service Rules, 1982, contending that he had been falsely implicated, no notice or opportunity of defence had been given, and the principles of natural justice had been grossly violated. The respondent Society filed its written statement asserting, inter alia, that the petitioner was a temporary employee whose services could be terminated without departmental enquiry. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajnandgaon dismissed the suit on 26.07.2005; however, in appeal, the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur by order dated 31.12.2007 allowed the appeal, holding that the petitioner was not mainly responsible and directing his reinstatement. The said order was affirmed in second appeal by the Additional Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Raipur on 12.09.2008, observing that the petitioner had not been afforded proper opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 preferred a revision before the State Government, which was allowed by order dated 05.04.2010 on the premise that the petitioner had been afforded opportunity during enquiry. Challenging the revisional order, the petitioner filed WPS No. 5105/2010 before this Court, which by order dated 10.08.2021 set aside the revisional order and restored the concurrent findings of the appellate authorities, holding that the 4 enquiry was not conducted in accordance with rules and reasonable opportunity, including the right to cross-examination, had not been granted to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a representation on 08.10.2021 seeking reinstatement; however, no action was taken by the authorities, compelling him to file Contempt Civil No. 668/2022, which was subsequently withdrawn, and hence the present petition has been preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the continued inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in giving effect to the lawful orders restoring the petitioner's service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the settled principles of natural justice, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It is contended that the revisional authority had earlier erred in holding that proper opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the petitioner, overlooking the undisputed fact that the original complaint was never directed against the petitioner but against the then Branch Manager, Shri P.L. Jangde, and that the enquiry was initially conducted against him; the mere presence of the petitioner, being an employee of the society, during such proceedings cannot be construed as affording him a meaningful or effective opportunity of defence. It is submitted that the termination was effected without issuance of any show-cause notice, without permitting cross-examination of witnesses, and without granting opportunity to adduce evidence, thereby 5 rendering the entire action arbitrary and perverse. Learned counsel further emphasizes that this Court, while allowing the earlier writ petition, has already recorded categorical findings that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with rules and that the revisional order was unsustainable in law, restoring the concurrent findings of the appellate authorities in favour of the petitioner; thus, the respondents are bound to act in compliance with the said judgment. Despite directions issued by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 5 to implement the Court's order, the petitioner has not been reinstated, demonstrating deliberate non- compliance and discriminatory treatment. It is also urged that due to the wrongful termination, the petitioner has been subjected to severe financial hardship and has been deprived of his livelihood, retiral benefits, and statutory entitlements, including provident fund, gratuity, pension, and other dues as contemplated under the Primary Agriculture Cooperative Societies Staff Service Conditions Rules, 2018. The continued denial of reinstatement and consequential benefits, it is submitted, amounts to gross injustice and hostile discrimination. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that appropriate directions be issued to ensure compliance with the earlier judicial pronouncement and to grant the petitioner all consequential service and monetary benefits.
4. Learned State counsel, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, would contend that the writ petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed in 6 limine, as the petitioner was initially appointed as Vikreta (Seller) on 14.04.1989 in respondent No.5 Society and was working as Sahayak Samiti Prabandhak at the time of his termination on 04.10.2004, and during the course of procurement proceedings a random enquiry conducted on 18.09.2004 revealed serious irregularities and misappropriation of paddy, inasmuch as the weight of each bag was found to be 43 kg instead of the prescribed 40 kg, thereby causing financial loss and demonstrating grave misconduct on the part of the petitioner; pursuant thereto, the Manager of the District Cooperative Central Bank issued a communication dated 20.09.2004 directing appropriate action, and the Society, in its meeting held on 04.10.2004, resolved to terminate the petitioner, which action was taken strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of material available on record. It is further submitted that the petitioner availed statutory remedies under Section 55(2) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajnandgaon, but the same was rejected vide order dated 26.07.2005; though the first appeal before the Joint Registrar was allowed on 31.12.2007, the second appeal preferred by respondent No.5 was dismissed on 12.09.2008, and thereafter in revision the competent authority, namely the Minister- in-Charge, Department of Cooperatives, by order dated 05.04.2010, rightly set aside the appellate orders upon considering that the petitioner had himself admitted his lapses in 7 his statement dated 28.07.2004, thereby restoring the termination order. It is further contended that the earlier writ petition bearing WPS No. 5105/2010 was disposed of with a limited direction to submit representation, which was duly considered, and there has been no deliberate inaction on the part of the authorities. Learned State counsel would emphatically deny all allegations of arbitrariness, violation of natural justice or discrimination, submitting that the petitioner was afforded due opportunity and that the findings of misconduct are based on record. It is lastly submitted that the reliefs claimed with regard to pension, gratuity, GPF and other retiral dues are wholly untenable and infructuous, as there exists no provision under the applicable Service Rules framed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies for grant of such benefits to the petitioner in the facts of the present case, and the subsequent amendment of 2018 only provides for subsistence allowance during suspension and does not create any vested right in favour of the petitioner; hence, the writ petition being baseless, misconceived and unsupported by statutory entitlement deserves to be dismissed with costs.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and having perused the record with due consideration, this Court finds that the core relief sought in the present writ petition is not reinstatement simpliciter but a mandamus directing release of salary, pension, gratuity, GPF and other consequential benefits with interest.
8
6. At the outset, it is to be noted that a writ of mandamus can be issued only when the petitioner establishes a subsisting legal right and a corresponding statutory duty on the part of the respondents. In the present case, the petitioner's termination dates back to 04.10.2004. The subsequent litigation history demonstrates that the matter travelled through multiple statutory forums and culminated in earlier proceedings before this Court. However, from the material placed on record in the present petition, it does not emerge that there is any specific operative direction presently in force commanding reinstatement with back wages or directing payment of retiral dues. Even assuming that the earlier order of this Court set aside the revisional authority's order, the petitioner has not demonstrated that a final executable direction exists entitling him ipso facto to back wages for the entire intervening period or to pensionary benefits. The claim for salary for the period during which the petitioner admittedly did not discharge duties cannot be granted as a matter of course. The principle of "no work, no pay" would ordinarily apply unless a clear judicial determination grants back wages upon setting aside termination. No such specific adjudication quantifying or directing payment of back wages has been brought to the notice of this Court in the present proceedings.
7. Furthermore, with regard to the claim of pension, gratuity and GPF, the petitioner has failed to establish that the applicable Service Rules governing respondent No.5 Society create a 9 statutory entitlement to such benefits in the facts of the present case. Learned State counsel has categorically submitted that no provision under the relevant Service Rules framed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies provides for grant of pensionary or GPF benefits as claimed, and that the 2018 amendment only contemplates subsistence allowance during suspension. In absence of a clear statutory foundation, this Court cannot issue a writ directing creation or disbursement of benefits not sanctioned by the governing rules.
8. It is also pertinent to observe that the petitioner had earlier initiated contempt proceedings, which were subsequently withdrawn. The present petition, in effect, seeks to indirectly enforce what is alleged to be non-compliance of an earlier order, yet without placing on record a crystallized and unequivocal direction capable of enforcement. A writ Court cannot undertake a roving enquiry into disputed questions relating to implementation of prior proceedings, particularly where the nature and scope of the operative direction remain unclear.
9. The allegations of arbitrariness, discrimination and violation of natural justice pertain essentially to the validity of the termination proceedings. That controversy has already undergone multiple rounds of adjudication before statutory authorities and this Court. The present petition, however, is confined to monetary and retiral benefits. In absence of a subsisting service relationship or a specific reinstatement order with consequential benefits, such 10 claims cannot be independently granted. Sympathy arising out of alleged financial hardship, though understandable, cannot override statutory requirements. Relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and equitable; it cannot be granted in the absence of a demonstrable legal right.
10. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish any enforceable legal right to claim salary, pension, gratuity, GPF or other consequential benefits as prayed for. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Shayna JUDGE