Order : (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners in WPS Nos.5784/2022, 5104/2023, 5671/2023, 5736/2023 & 2171/2024 and Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner in WPS No.2478/2024. Also heard Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State as well as Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank. 2. Since common question is involved in these writ petitions, they are clubbed together heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners in these batch of writ petitions are employees of the District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Raipur (in short, “the Bank”) in different posts; such as, Branch Manager, Additional Assistant Manager, Society Manager, Accountant, Assistant Accountant, Clerk and Peon etc. The common grievance in these batch of writ petitions is in respect of denial/stoppage of annual increments to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.04.2021. 4. For the sake of convenience, WPS No.5671/2023 is being treated as the lead case. 5. In WPS No.5671/2023, the petitioners have sought for following relief(s):- “i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the Respondents. ii. To kindly set aside and quash the impugned order dated 15.03.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Respondent no.2/Registrar Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh. iii. To kindly set aside and quash the impugned order dated 06.01.2020 (Annexure P/1A) issued by the Respondent no.2/Registrar, Cooperative Societies so far it relates to restricting the right of the Petitioners to receive annual increments. iv. To kindly set aside and quash the Clause 7 of the impugned order dated 22.01.2020 (Annexure P/2) issued by the Respondent no.4/District Central Cooperative Bank Limited. v. To kindly direct the Respondents not to alter the service conditions of the Petitioners and release the annual increments of the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2021 with arrears and penal interest @ 10% due to illegal withholding of the same. vi. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner from the respondent no.2.” 6. Brief facts of all the cases, in a nutshell, are that the petitioners are working employees of respondent-Bank since past several decades without any blemish and to the satisfaction of the authorities. The petitioners are holding the posts of Branch Manager, Additional Assistant Manager, Society Manager, Accountant, Assistant Accountant, Clerk and Peon etc. Brief facts of all the cases, in a nutshell, are that the petitioners are working employees of respondent-Bank since past several decades without any blemish and to the satisfaction of the authorities. The petitioners are holding the posts of Branch Manager, Additional Assistant Manager, Society Manager, Accountant, Assistant Accountant, Clerk and Peon etc. respectively. Respondent No.4 is a "Cooperative Bank" as defined under Section 15(D)(b) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1959 as well as Section 2(d-i) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (in short, “the Act”). The service conditions of the petitioners are governed through the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Central Bank Employees Services (Terms of Employment and Working Conditions) Rules 1982 (in short, “the Service Rules”). The aforesaid Service Rules have been issued by the Registrar under Section 55(1) of the Act. In the year 2016, based on the suggestions received from various quarters, including National Federation of State Cooperative Banks (in short, ‘NAFSCOB’), Chairman, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (in short, ‘NABARD’) constituted "Committee for a Assessment of Human Resources of STCCS in the Post CBS Environment" under Chairmanship of Shri R. Amalorpavanathan, Deputy Managing Director, NABARD (in short, “the APN Committee”). The aforesaid Committee vide letter dated 10.10.2017 submitted its report and recommended that the cost effective measures are to be taken by the Cooperative Banks, but nowhere recommended that the annual increments of the existing employees be withheld or denied based upon their performance. Since the pay-scale of the employees of the Bank needed revision on the basis of Price Index Pay Scale, the Registrar Cooperative Societies Chhattisgarh vide order dated 15.06.2018 constituted a 6 member Committee for submitting the Bankwise, Postwise Pay Fixation Report in accordance with the Financial Conditions of the Banks, absorption angle, the pay-scale given in the Nationalized Banks and the directives of the NABARD. The aforesaid Committee submitted its report on 19.09.2018 and 03.10.2018. The Additional Registrar vide order dated 22.02.2019 constituted another 5 member Committee to submit reasonable and justifiable proposal for amendment in the Service Rules and Pay-scale of the Bank taking into account the report submitted by the 6 member Committee and other factors; such as, pay-scale of Government servants, nationalized banks and financial position of banks etc. The aforesaid 5 member Committee submitted its report on 28.02.2019. The aforesaid 5 member Committee submitted its report on 28.02.2019. The Registrar on the basis of such report exercised its powers under Section 55(1) of the Act and amended the Service Rules vide order dated 06.03.2019. Similar orders were also issued by the Registrar, which are not relevant in the present cases 7. In the month of May 2019, the NABARD issued a Circular No.131/IDD-03/2019 and directed the respondents to place the APN Committee Report before the Board of the Banks for consideration and adoption with necessary modifications, if any to suit the banks requirements. In the meantime, the State Government vide order dated 06.06.2019 posted Shri Dhananjay Dewangan IAS as Registrar Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh and the intimation letter dated 10.06.2019 was issued to this effect. The aforesaid Registrar on 06.01.2020 passed the impugned order vide No. Sakh-2/CCB/60/2019 purportedly under Section 55(1) of the Act substituting the Appendix prescribed in Rule 21(6) of the Service Rules and making the pay revision subject to the conditions imposed therein. The Registrar mentioned about report submitted by the aforesaid 5 member Committee dated 15.11.2019. The aforesaid order is subject to mandatory statutory compliance under Section 95 of the Act, but without awaiting any such compliance by the Registrar, the respondent- Bank has accepted the same in its Board meeting dated 15.01.2020. The aforesaid Registrar namely Shri Dhananjay Dewangan IAS presided over the aforesaid Board meeting dated 15.01.2020 as Prescribed Officer and appears to have prevailed upon the Board Members of the Bank to accept his order dated 06.01.2020. Consequently, the impugned order vide No.Sthapana/Vetan/2019- 20/3714 dated 22.01.2020 has been issued by the respondent-Bank, by which the Bank without any jurisdiction or authority under the Act has adversely impacted the service conditions of the petitioners and vide Clause 7 of the order, has decided that the annual increments payable to the employees including the petitioners would be dependent upon and subject to the Performance Evaluation done by the Managing Committee of the respondent-Bank. The employees have been forced by the respondent-Bank to submit their option forms making it a condition precedent to get the annual increment. The petitioners have also submitted the option forms in the hope that their future annual increment (w.e.f 01.04.2021) may not get impaired for want of such option form. 8. The employees have been forced by the respondent-Bank to submit their option forms making it a condition precedent to get the annual increment. The petitioners have also submitted the option forms in the hope that their future annual increment (w.e.f 01.04.2021) may not get impaired for want of such option form. 8. It is further case of the petitioners that they were not granted the annual increment on 01.04.2021 when it became statutorily due. On 29-30.04.2021, the District Cooperative Central Bank Employees Union approached the Registrar and requested for sanctioning of the annual increment which was withheld contrary to the Rules 21(2) of the Service Rules. The Union also highlighted that the restriction of withholding annual increment has been implemented only in the Raipur Branch of the Bank and in other branches, the annual increments are being granted, but no action was taken by the Registrar. However, on the Board meeting dated 07.09.2021, the Board of Directors of the Bank resolved that the proposal for relaxing the condition imposed vide order dated 06.01.2020 be sent to the Registrar. Accordingly, the proposals in compliance of the resolution of the Board of the respondent-Bank were sent to the Registrar on 21.09.2021 and 17.12.2021, but till date, no action has been taken. The Employees Union of the petitioners kept on representing to the State functionaries as also submitted representations to the Chief Minister on 09.02.2022, but of no avail. 9. In the meantime, some employees of the respondent-Bank have approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing WPS No.5783/2022, in which vide order dated 12.09.2022, a direction has been given to the State as also the respondent-Bank to file detailed affidavit showing material consideration behind the aforesaid amendment order dated 06.01.2020. In the meantime, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned order dated 15.03.2023, by which the provision of annual increment itself has been deleted and substituted with restrictive provisions of getting annual increment only upon discretion of the respondent-Bank. 10. The petitioners in WPS No.2171/2024 earlier challenged the aforesaid order dated 06.01.2020 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies by way of separate writ petitions, but due to subsequent events, the writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 24.11.2023 reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to approach the State Government. The State Government vide common order dated 11.03.2024 has rejected the representation of the petitioners upholding the order dated 06.01.2020. The State Government vide common order dated 11.03.2024 has rejected the representation of the petitioners upholding the order dated 06.01.2020. This order is also under challenge along with other orders as mentioned herein-above. 11. Mr. Varun Sharma and Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in respective writ petitions have jointly submitted that the petitioners are regular employees of the respondent- Bank and their services are governed by the statutory rules namely the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Central Bank Employees Services (Terms of Employment and Working Conditions) Rules 1982 and as per the aforesaid Rules, particularly Rule 21 thereof, the grant of annual increment is a part of their pay-structure. They have further submitted that the petitioners in the year 2016, based on the suggestions received from various quarters, including NAFSCOB, Chairman, NABARD constituted APN Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri R Amalorpavanathan, Deputy Managing Director, NABARD. The aforesaid Committee vide letter dated 10.10.2017 submitted its report and the aforesaid Committee although recommended for cost effective measures to be taken by the Cooperative Banks, but nowhere recommended that the annual increments of the existing employees be withheld or denied based upon their performance. It has been contended that the Registrar Cooperative Societies while considering the report of aforesaid APN Committee issued the impugned order dated 06.01.2020, by which the Service Rules have been amended in exercise of the powers under Section 55(1) of the Act directing that as per the recommendations of the APN Committee upto 31.03.2021, the establishment cost be brought within the limit of 15% of the gross income and 1.5% of the functional capital of the Bank. A specific note must be mentioned by the Auditor regarding compliance of such criteria and in case the criteria is not met then the payment of annual increment of the employees will be automatically restricted and after the fulfillment of the criteria only the annual increment would be permissible. It has been further contended that the respondent-Bank in the meeting dated 15.01.2020, its Board of Directors complied with the order and issued the second impugned order dated 22.01.2020, in which particularly under Clause 7, the Bank has decided that after 31.03.2021, the annual increment to the employees will be granted only after performance evaluation by the Managing Committee of the Bank. As a result of these orders, the annual increment which was due to the petitioners on 01.04.2021 was not granted. 12. Further submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are that the Employees Union agitated the issue of denial of annual increment w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and made representations including the detailed representation dated 29.04.2021 to the Registrar and Competent Authority of the Bank. The respondent-Bank also in the meeting of its Board of Directors dated 07.09.2021 recommended for sending proposal to the Registrar Cooperative Societies for relaxing the restrictions imposed with regard to the annual increment in the Service Rules. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners the Respondent Registrar, Cooperative Societies vide impugned order dated 15.03.2023 while again exercising powers under Section 55(1) of the Act amended with the Service Rules and by deleting the Rule 21, has substituted the provision that the grant of annual increment would be subject to the discretion of the Board of Directors of the Bank, which was earlier the component of the regular pay of the petitioners. The Petitioners have thus challenged the aforesaid orders dated 06.01.2020 and 15.03.2023 issued by the Registrar Cooperative Societies as well as the order dated 22.01.2020 issued by the Bank with the additional challenge to the rejection of representation vide order dated 11.03.2024 issued by the State Government upholding the aforesaid order dated 06.01.2020. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and others v. CP Mundinamani and others reported in 2023 SCC onLine SC 401 and Balco Captive Power Plant Mazdoor Sangh and another v. National Thermal Power Corporation and others reported in (2007) 14 SCC 234 as well as judgments rendered by Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hemant Kumar Ganga Prasad Gupta v. President, District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja and others reported in 1983 MPLJ 461 and Hukamchand Mills Karmachari Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha and others v. State of M.P. and others reported in 1988 MPLJ 201 . 13. On the other hand, Mr. Surguja and others reported in 1983 MPLJ 461 and Hukamchand Mills Karmachari Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha and others v. State of M.P. and others reported in 1988 MPLJ 201 . 13. On the other hand, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective petitioners and submits that the petitioners are challenging the orders dated 15.03.2023 and 06.01.2020 passed by the respondent No.2/Registrar Co-operative Societies Chhattisgarh as also the order dated 20.01.2020 passed by the respondent No.4/District Central Co- operative Bank on the ground that such orders was issued in respect to the employment condition amended by the respondent No.2 has not been complied, particularly according to the Section 95 sub-Section 3 of the Act. He further submits that the services of the petitioners are governed with the Service Rules of District Co-operative Bank Employee Service Rules, particularly Rule 21(2), which specifically indicates that the increment of the employee of the Bank cannot be stopped only to condition 51-A of the Service Rules, but the order of amendment has been passed by the respondent No.2. It has been contended that the ground taken by the petitioners under Section 95(3) of the Act has not been complied, as Section 95(3) speaks about any rule make under the Act would be put before the table of legislative assembly, as such, the argument of the petitioners is very mischievous and misleading. He further submits that it is not disputed that any disciplinary or departmental proceedings are running against the petitioners, but in the present petitions, increment has not been stopped as a punishment of the particular person/employee. It has been contended that the impugned Service Rules has been framed for good financial health of the Bank and if the health of the Co-operative Central Bank will loose, the employee will suffer by other yearly increment, thus, the punishment has not been imposed to employee, therefore, in such condition, the argument of the petitioners would not be sustainable in the eyes of law. He placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of M.L. Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in Writ Petition (S) No.3550 of 2013 decided on 04.01.2016 . 14. Mr. He placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of M.L. Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in Writ Petition (S) No.3550 of 2013 decided on 04.01.2016 . 14. Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank submits that the respondent-Bank by its meeting dated 07.09.2021 has taken a policy decision with respect to annual increment of the employees who were working under the Bank and specifically passed the resolution. Thereafter again on 07.02.2022, the respondent-Bank has requested to the Registrar to relax the provision for granting annual increment. It has been contended that the Registrar has power under Section 55 of the Act, therefore it is clear that the Registrar is the competent authority to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 55 of the Act. It has been further contended that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies by exercising the power, issued order dated 27.10.2017, amended the paragraph-4 after paragraph-3 of Chapter (2) of the Employees' Service Rules, which is prescribed under Section 55 (1) of the Act which is in consonance with the Acts and Rules applicable to the petitioners-employees. He has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of S.P. Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in Writ Appeal No.338 of 2023 decided on 02.02.2024 . 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed thereto with utmost circumspection. 16. The petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid orders mainly on the following three grounds:- (i) The impugned orders of the Registrar Cooperative Societies are not in conformity with the provisions of Sections 55(1) read with Section 95(3) of the Act. (ii) The impugned orders of the Registrar Cooperative Societies are in violation of the Rules 21(2) and 57 of the Service Rules. (iii) The impugned orders issued by the Registrar Cooperative Societies and the Bank are in violation of the principles of natural justice. 17. With regard to the first ground, it has been submitted that the impugned orders dated 06.01.2020 and 15.03.2023 issued by the Registrar Cooperative Societies are contrary to the laying down provisions mandated by Section 95(3) of the Act, which provides that all rules made under this Act shall be laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly. 17. With regard to the first ground, it has been submitted that the impugned orders dated 06.01.2020 and 15.03.2023 issued by the Registrar Cooperative Societies are contrary to the laying down provisions mandated by Section 95(3) of the Act, which provides that all rules made under this Act shall be laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly. Since the impugned orders have been issued by the Registrar in the nature of amendment in the Service Rules, the laying down requirement as prescribed under the Act is required to be followed strictly in accordance with law. The Rules must be followed what has been prevailed and without compliance of such requirement the impugned orders would not have statutory force so as to effect any change in service conditions of petitioners such as denial of annual increment. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu and Others reported in (2023) 10 SCC 461 , while dealing with the issue of statutory remedy where a right or a liability is created by a statute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, has observed in para-13 as follows :- “13. It is well-settled principle of law that where a right or a liability is created by a statue, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by the statue must be availed of. It is also well settled salutary principle that if a Statue provides for doing a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. In Cherukuri Mani v. State of A.P. (2015) 13 SCC 722, it is observed that: (SCC p. 727, para 14) “14. “where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it shall be done in the same manner following the provisions of law, without deviating from the prescribed procedure.” 19. Further, with regard to the second ground that the impugned orders are contrary to the Service Rules, the petitioners have submitted that under the Rule 21 of the Service Rules the grant of annual increment is an accrued right in favour of the petitioners, which accrues every year upon satisfactory completion of the period of service. Further, with regard to the second ground that the impugned orders are contrary to the Service Rules, the petitioners have submitted that under the Rule 21 of the Service Rules the grant of annual increment is an accrued right in favour of the petitioners, which accrues every year upon satisfactory completion of the period of service. The said Rule 21(2) clearly contains a statutory bar that other than the cases of punishment under Rule 57 the annual increment shall not be denied in any case. Such statutory prohibition in stoppage of annual increment cannot be ignored by the Registrar while exercising powers under Section 55(1) of the Act. 20. In the matter of Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL (supra) , it has been held that the Government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one year service. Increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency . The impugned orders passed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies are thus punitive in nature. 21. Thirdly, the petitioners have challenged the impugned orders on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice as the impugned orders have been passed without any show cause notice or hearing the side of the Petitioner employees. 22. To consider the submissions made in these petitions the relevant legal provisions required to be considered are Section 55(1) of the Act which is as under:- “ 55. Registrar’s power to determine conditions of employment in societies.- (1) the Registrar may, from time to time, frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a society or class of societies and the society or class of societies to which such terms and conditions of employment are applicable shall comply with the order that may be issued by the Registrar in this behalf.” 23. Section 95 confers rule making power on the State Government. Sub-section 95(2)(x) enables the State Government to make rules to “ prescribe qualifications for members of the committee and employees of a society or class of societies and the conditions of service subject to which persons may be employed by a society. Thus, the Registrar is not the only authority to prescribe service conditions. The State Government is over and above the Registrar. 24. Thus, the Registrar is not the only authority to prescribe service conditions. The State Government is over and above the Registrar. 24. The above power of the State/Registrar are not independent discretionary power without any check and balance but the same is subject to the will of the people in the manner of laying down requirement under Section 95(3) of the Act which is as under:- “ 95. Power to make rules.- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (3) All rules made under this Act shall be laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly.” 25. The Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has considered the aforesaid rule making powers of Registrar under Section 55(1) of the Act in the matter of Hemant Kumar Ganga Prasad Gupta (supra) and held as follows:- “4.… The second check on the power of the Registrar is furnished by the laying requirement under section 95(3). Although sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 95 relate to the power of the State Government to make rules, sub-section (3) of section 95 is wider in scope which refers to all rules made under the Act and requires them to be laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly. Sub- section (3), in our opinion, will cover the rules made by the Registrar under section 55. A provision for laying the rules made under an Act is a method of control exercised by the Legislature over the rule making authority and if such a control is kept it has been held that the power to make rules cannot suffer from excessive delegation : N.K. Papiah& Sons v. Excise Commr. [ (1975) 1 SCC 492 : AIR 1975 SC 1007 , p. 1011.] …. 26. Further, Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Hukamchand Mills Karmachari Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha (supra) has held the effect of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 95(3) of the Act as follows:- “10. The manner in which the rules are to be dealt with after they have been laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly, is to be found in Section 24-A of the M.P. General Clauses Act. The manner in which the rules are to be dealt with after they have been laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly, is to be found in Section 24-A of the M.P. General Clauses Act. On reading the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 95 of the Act, Sections 21 and 24-A of the M.P. General Clauses Act in juxtaposition in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of D.S. Garewal (supra) we are of opinion that the legal position which emerges, can be stated thus: In order to enforce the rules, the State Government has to frame them in exercise of the power conferred on it by sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 95 of the Act. The rules are thereafter to be laid by the State Government on the table of the Legislative Assembly. These requirements shall, in view of Section 21 of the M.P. General Clauses Act, apply even to an amendment of the rule. Once the State Government has complied with these requirements, namely it has framed the rules ad has laid them on the table of the Legislative Assembly, the rules come into force. The rules so framed which have come into force as soon as they have been laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly, shall continue to be in force till the Legislative Assembly ‘adopts a resolution that such a rule should not be made or that any modification be made therein’. If any such resolution is adopted, then ‘the rules shall thereafter, be of no effect or have effect only in the modified form as the case may be.’ In view of the proviso to Section 24-A, however, any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.” 27. The Registrar exercising powers under Section 55(1) of the Act is required to follow with the procedure prescribed in law when the same is resulting in taking away of accrued right of the employees. There is nothing on record to show that such legal procedure has been followed by the Respondents before taking away the accrued rights of the Petitioners to receive annual increment upon completion of service of one year. 28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Director (Admn. There is nothing on record to show that such legal procedure has been followed by the Respondents before taking away the accrued rights of the Petitioners to receive annual increment upon completion of service of one year. 28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL (supra) has held that annual increment of an employee is not related to any achievement but only with passing one year of service with good conduct. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “18… A government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one year service. Increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. Therefore, the increment is earned for rendering service with good conduct in a year/specified period. Therefore, the moment a government servant has rendered service for a specified period with good conduct, in a time scale, he is entitled to the annual increment and it can be said that he has earned the annual increment for rendering the specified period of service with good conduct. Therefore, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of the annual increment on the eventuality of having served for a specified period (one year) with good conduct efficiently…..” 29. Thus, the impugned orders dated 06.01.2020 and 15.03.2023 issued by the Registrar Cooperative Societies are in violation of the mandatory requirement of law and do not have statutory force to effect any change in service conditions of the Petitioners to receive annual increment. 30. Admittedly, the service conditions of the petitioners are governed through the statutory Service Rules. Rule 21(2) of the Service Rules provides for grant of annual increment. 30. Admittedly, the service conditions of the petitioners are governed through the statutory Service Rules. Rule 21(2) of the Service Rules provides for grant of annual increment. Relevant Rule 21(2) of the Service Rules is quoted below for the sake of ready reference:- ^^21- deZpkfj;ksa ds osru HkRrs Hkqxrku djus ckor& xxx xxx ¼nks½ o`f)’khy osrueku esa osruo`f) lnSo mDr osrueku ij fufnZ"V lsokvof/k dh lekfIr ij mikftZr (Accrue) gksxh] pkgs ,slh lsok LFkk;h gks ;k vLFkk;hA inkoufr dh n’kk esa fdlh deZpkjh }kjk mPprj Js.kh esa dh xbZ lfdz; lsok dks ml deZpkjh dh ewy Js.kh esa o`f)’khy osrueku esa osruo`f) nsus gsrq fxuk tkosxkA ;fn osruo`f) ds fnukad ij deZpkjh fcuk osru ds vodk’k ij gks rks mldh osruo`f) mlds iqu% dk;Zjr gksus ds fnukad ls Lohd`r dh tkosxh A ;g dsoy mlh o"kZ ds fy, izHkko’khy gksxh rFkk vkxkeh o"kZ eas osruo`f) dh frfFk dh frfFk ij bldk dksbZ izHkko ugha gksxk- deZpkfj;ksa dh osruo`f) eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh }kjk Lohd`r dh tkosxh rFkk eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh dh osruo`f) ds izLrko v/;{k }kjk Lohd`r fd;s tkosaxs A lsokfu;e 57¼,d½ ds vUrxZr fn;s tkus okys n.M ds flok; fdlh vU; fLFkfr esa deZpkjh dh osruo`f) ugha jksdh tkosxh A^^ 31. The Registrar while passing the impugned order dated 06.01.2020 has not considered the bar provided under Rule 57 of the Service Rules and has straightaway restricted the accrued right of the Petitioners. Thus, the impugned order is contrary to the Service Rules. 32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Balco Captive Power Plant Mazdoor Sangh (supra) has held in paragraph-35 as follows :- “35. The Government or its instrumentality cannot alter the conditions of service of its employees and any such alteration causing prejudice cannot be effected without affording opportunity of pre-decisional hearing and the same would amount to arbitrary and violative of Article 14…...” 33. Although it is not a prerequisite for a law making authority to issue show cause notice before framing statutory provisions but in the present case the Registrar was issuing an order under Section 55(1) of the Act which takes the shape of law only after the compliance of the laying down procedure under Section 95(3) of the Act. Prior to sending the order for laying down before the State Legislature the Registrar ought to have heard all the affected parties. Prior to sending the order for laying down before the State Legislature the Registrar ought to have heard all the affected parties. The Registrar has failed in complying with the principles of natural justice resulting in denial of accrued rights to the employees/petitioners. 34. The case law cited by the respondents do not answer the questions regarding non-compliance of the procedure under Section 95(3) of the Act and the specific statutory bar under Rule 21(2) of the Service Rules barring the denial/stoppage of annual increment by way of order only. Thus, the same are not relevant for the purposes of the present petitions. The noncompliance of Section 95(3) of the Act and bar under Rule 21(2) of the Service Rules is fatal. 35. Considering the matter in its entirely as well as considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and different High Courts in the afore-quoted judgments, such as Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL (supra), Balco Captive Power Plant Mazdoor Sangh (supra), Hemant Kumar Ganga Prasad Gupta (supra), Hukamchand Mills Karmachari Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha (supra) and Dharmin Bai Kashyap (supra), the impugned orders dated 15.03.2023 and 06.01.2020 issued by the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh as well as the order dated 22.01.2020 issued by the District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Raipur, Chhattisgarh are hereby quashed as the respondent-Bank do not conform to the statutory provisions of the Act, Service Rules and the principles of natural justice. The rejection of representation vide order dated 11.03.2024 upholding of order dated 06.01.2020 is also contrary to law and the same is hereby quashed. The petitioners are entitled for annual increment w.e.f. 01.04.2021. The exercise for releasing the annual increments of the petitioners be completed within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 36. Concludingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners have make out a case for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India within the four corners of law and yardsticks set out by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court as well as different High Courts in the above-quoted judgments. 37. As a fallout and upshot of the above-stated legal discussions, the writ petitions are hereby allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. There shall be no order as to cost(s).