w^^ HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT SILA8PUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITIONfe) No.2©8i Ishwar Lal Pate! S^ Shri G.R.PateI, Aged abwt38 years, Woridag ss Waterman in the Pre-mstrie^ Aadivasi Balak, Chhatrawas, Baloda, Distt. Jaajgir- ? Champa(C.G.) '^ , VERSUS . , :. .. 1. State of Chhattisgaih TlyoughSecretary: Department; ofTriba}Wel&re,D.K.S.Bhawaa,Raipur(C.G.)? 2. The Cormnissioner, Department of Tribal Welfare, Raipur(G.G.) , ;, .-!: 3. Collector (Tribal Wetfare) District - Jaajgir - Champa(C.G.) . 4. District.Organizer (Tribal Welfare) / District— Janjgir -Champa(C.G.) WRTT PETmONUNDER ARTICLE226 OFTHE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SBiHon'UeSln-iSatBshK.AsmhotrLJ. :1^ (S Present: Shri Ashish Shnvastava, Advocate fbrthepetitioaer. Shri Ajay Dwivedi.Deputy ©ovemmentAdvoeate forthe State/respomlents. ; ORALORDER (Pagsedon09ltldayofMay,2008) ' 1. The petitioner was hutiaUy appointed on the post of Water-man (Jal Wahak) on 02.05.1990 atCollector'srate.Accordmgto the learaed counsel appearing fbr the petitioner, the petitioner was absorbed lin the Tribal Welfare .Departmeiit on 12.03.1991 aml was regulanseA-ou , 14.2.1994 (Aimexure P/2) :SubsequentIy,byorderdated 3.8.2002. (Annejaire P/3), the orderdated 14.2.1994 (AnnexureP/2^was suspended till proper scrutinv is done. Thereaftsr, I. •• 3.. Jt • ••.'»/••• - . • . •. . • ./ . A to llie petitioner at the rate of Collector was made applicable. Si Ifaepetitioner was issued a sho'w-cause-notice bn 23.Q2.2007 (Atmexare P/4) calline upon flie petitioner to sybmit his response as to why flie regularpaysca(egraiitedbvoi^datedl4.08J1994benotquasHejd.;^ 5. The petitioner, instead offilins response to the show-cause-notice filed this petition praying that tfae impugned order dated Q3.08.2002 whereby the grant ofregular pay scale was suspended arid order dated 23.2,2007 (Annexure P/4) whereby the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, be quashed. -^ Shri Shrivastava further relies on the judgment and order dated 18 January, 20006 passed by this Court ia W.P. No. 2125 6f 2002 (Sant Kumar & Others v. State ofChhattisgarh & Others) wherem, according to leamed counsel for the petitioner, similarly situafed employees were grantedrelie£ I In Ifaat case, the impugned order was quashed because no proper opportunity ofhearing was given to the petitioners. In Ifae present case, the petitioner has come to this Cpurt agamstthe show-cause-notice affording proper opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. The petition is premature as no final order has been passed. The petitioner ought to have filed his detailed replyto the authorities instead ofconriagtothis court seeking quashmg ofthe show-cause-nofice dated 23.02.2007. ; In view ofthe foregoing, there is no merit in this case as the petitioa is premature. Thepetitionis aecordingly disiiussedsummarily. •Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' IN i- I