Brijaindra Yadav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Amit Seth, J

Heard on the question of admission.

The instant writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claims following reliefs:-

"1.That, order passed by respondent no 2 Annexure P/1 &P/2 may kindly be quashed.

The respondent no 2 may kindly be directed to continue the work of petitioner in the interest of justice.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted."

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the respondent No.3, the petitioner was appointed as a Salesman to perform his duties in the Government Fair Price Shop operated by the respondent No.3/Prathmik Laghu Vanopaj Sahakari Samiti Maryadit. It is submitted that at the request of the respondent No.3, now the said shop is attached to some other shop and therefore, the respondent No.3 vide order dated 18.09.2025 (Annexure P/2) has directed the petitioner to handover the charge of the government fair price shop. The petitioner submits that his appointment was made by the respondent No.3 to work in a fair price shop but now, the charge is being sought to be withdrawn by the respondent No.3 arbitrarily and therefore, the instant writ petition is filed seeking appropriate direction against the respondent No.3.

The learned counsel appearing for the State, on advance copy, submits that the attachment of the fair price shop vide Annexure P/1 has been made at the behest of the cooperative society. The petitioner is not an employee of the State, he is the employee of the respondent No.3/society. In case of any service dispute or grievance, the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 55(2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Annexure P/1 relating to attachment of the Fair Price Shop has been issued at the behest of the cooperative society. The cooperative society is not aggrieved by the said order and is not the petitioner before this Court. Annexure P/2 dated 18.09.2025 has been passed by respondent No.3 i.e. a cooperative society, who is the employer of the petitioner. Admittedly, the dispute raised is a service dispute between the petitioner and the cooperative society (employer of petitioner).

In view of the above, the instant writ petition is declined admission on merits. The petitioner is relegated to avail the statutory alternative remedy available to him against his employer in terms of Section 55(2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 if so desired.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. In case, the petitioner avails any such remedy before the competent authority within a period of 15 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided on merits by the concerned authority.