Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
Order Date: 27-07-2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: a group of managers (named individually in WPS Nos. 11180, 12961, 12565, 12179, 12105, 11350, 11353, 11215, 11222, 10775, 12434, 13547, 14201, 11357, 11895, 10498, 10951, 11801, 11553) employed in various Primary Minor Forest Produce Cooperative Societies across districts of Balod, Bastar, Balrampur‑Ramanujganj, Bilaspur, Rajnandgaon, Kanker, Gariyaband, Kondagaon, etc. They sought direction that the Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce Trading And Development Cooperative Federation Limited (the Federation) treat them as regular employees under Rule 7(4) of the “Chhattisgarh Rajya Prathmik Vanopaj Sahakari Sanstha Prabandhak Seva” Rules and grant permanent salary and benefits.
- Respondents: the Federation, represented by its Managing Director, Executive Director, and Managing Director & Registrar of the relevant District Cooperative Unions.
- Petitioners argued that the Federation exercises complete administrative, financial and functional control over the Primary Societies, that the Rules and Gazette Notification of 20‑04‑2001 make the Federation the de‑facto employer, and that denial of regularisation violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- Respondents contended that the Federation is only the apex body in a three‑tier cooperative structure; the Primary Societies are independent entities under the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and only they can appoint, confirm and pay the managers. They maintained that Rule 7(4) merely provides confirmation within the Primary Society and creates no right of absorption by the Federation.
- The Court examined the statutory Rules: Rule 2(iii) defines “Prabandhak” as a manager of a Primary Cooperative Society; Rule 3(v) requires the Primary Society’s President to requisition recruitment; Rule 6(v) mandates that the appointment order be signed by the President of the concerned Primary Society; Rule 7(iv) provides confirmation after one‑year probation within the Primary Society; and Rule 7(4) does not confer any right of regularisation against the Federation.
- The Court noted that only one appointment order was placed on record, issued by a Primary Society President, and the rest were absent, preventing determination of the appointing authority.
- The Court highlighted that the Primary Societies were not impleaded, and without them no effective writ could be issued against the Federation.
- The Court referred to Section 55 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, which gives the Registrar authority to decide employment disputes, and observed that the petitioners had not exhausted this statutory remedy.
- Precedents cited: State of H.P. v Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd (2005) and Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU v Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd (2020) emphasizing the need to use alternative remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.
Final Outcome
All the writ petitions are dismissed for lack of merit; the Federation is not liable to regularise the petitioners’ services. The petitioners are free to pursue any available remedy under the Cooperative Societies Act, including approaching the Registrar.
Topics: Employment Regularisation, Cooperative Governance