-<"?- HJGBCQT-EETOT' PFTTTTONFR WntP!eujffion^N^S3fi7of2%)7 KunjP.am Nayak, aged about 46 years, S/o Bhagat Ram Nayak. Occup. Waterman, in the Department of Tribal HQVS HosteL Oosigafioali- Qistrict R^ig&rh (QG\. 1. The State of Clihattisgarh, Through the Secretary Department of Tribal welfare. Mantralaya, DKS Building, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (CG). 2. The Commissioner. Tnbai Department, Tehsil and District Raigarh(CG). 3. Tlie Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Raiearh.DistrictRaigarh(CG). — 4. The CoUector Tribal Welfare Braiich, District Raigarh, (WRFT PETmON LTNDER A-RTTCLE 226 OF THE CONSTmJTTON OF TNDIA) fSB" HonMe Mr. SattshK- Asi"I*otri. J-^ Prssent ; Shri R.iiDCsh Slinva^tavs. Advocsits forthe Dctitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia. DeputS' Govt. Advocate for the State. (Passed on 02M day ofMay, 2008) With the consent of tlie parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. By this petition, tlle petitipner has challenged tlie validity ofthe order dated 04.10.1997 (Annexure P./l) passed by the A-fiditional Collector, Raigarh (CG), whsreuiider the gract of regular pay sca'e to the petitioner was withdrawn aiid hewaspaidtliereaftei'dailywagesas per Collectoijs rate. The iiidisDutable fects. iu nutshelL ars that isiitisllv Bll the Detitioncr was appointed as Watenrla!i at GQllector's rate on 21.021992 (Amexure P/2). Subsequently, after compSetio" of three years, he was granted regularpay scaleofP-.s. 750-945/-. Shri Rupesh Shrivastaya, Isamed counsel appearing for the petitionei- submits that the issue involved in this petition is as to whether pay scale of tlie pstitioner caa be reduced behmd his back, wifhout affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his • s S?Au ca,ss< L.cai'ned couzisel fiii'th'sr sybiiiits ths.t the idesiticsl issue involviiis ?iitica.l f^c-ts canie UQ bsfors tliis Ooys*t in ^^.P. ?^To. 215^2/2002 (Sa.iit Kliiiiiar psid others ^/s. Stets: of 01ilip;ttis2Qrli aiid o1.h€Ts\ This Court hsld th$it rerJitctioii of D^/' scalc witliQUt ^.f&rdisis a!i ODDOi*tU!iit\f o.f hesi'iiis is Diiiiili^/e aiid ^/isits witb- ciYil CQHSGQiissices. *£? "" I~ —— ^^ . w -~u.»^u^u^ . , ^r.^^ .^^. > ^^ — ^-..^ ^ ».-^—. ~-d.^. — —^< Shri ^.i.P.S ShBtiB. lesrned OeDiit^'' Gc"4. Advocate. BDDesrins fcr the Sla.t's subsiits thEit tlw' Gusstioii ofh IBW iiivolved 111 this t^etitiosi is 'dentical to that of i" ths matter of Sant Kumar aiid otiiers (Supra). Thus, this matter is squarely covered by decisio" of this Court passed iu th's Hisittsr ofSsnt Kyniar 9nd others fsuQraY ^/[r. ShrivBStBV& &i'thsr subi'nits th?.t the resoondciits/St^te of Ohh3,ttisgarh Drefen'cd a. SDscial Les.ve Petitioii {Civil^ lslo. 171.22/5006 (Stgite of Chhattisssrh <& Others Vs. Ssnt Kli1niBr •^ Qthers^ be&re the IIonfbli£' Sunre'isie Oouil^ challe'iisins ths' orde-r dstsd 1B.01.2006 fSuni'a\ nassed b^/ this Couil ^sid ths' SBnie IIBS b'se'ii disiiiissed b^f ths 'Hloii^blc Siinrsiiis Oourt vid.e' oi'<i^r da-ted 09.10.2006 a.fier co'iKioiiiiis the dc'l^v. L.eani'sd couiissl Bnoea.i'iiis for the Darties ioiiitlv sybiiiits tha-t tliis casfs 'J'T""*"'^---0 —-^-—.— ^-T^,*-*—-^^j—^**—^ ,-».^_-^A.-.>^ u»^~>—--.—.— —. is SQU9r^lY CQvere'd by ths iudgziient ^nd order dsted 1B.01.2006 pa-ssef ifi th's cssc of Sant K.uinsr &iid othei's (SuGraV Thus. thc 12111 order dated 04.10.97 (Aaaexure P/l), is bad in 'aw, being punitive in HBlxire siid Da-ssed without affordhig ati ooQQrtunit\? of heaniis to tlis couc'sxticd et?iDlovc's {Detitioner^ fbr D'jttins fi3n,s/sf*d his CSLSQ. Ths Detitioii is accorduislv ^ilo^ved. IniDusiied ordsr dated 04.10.97 fAtixisxurl£ P/l^ is Qu?.sli6<i. T'lie DetitioiipT is entitled to rssuls^r D&V sc-Bls' irolni tlie dste llie' ssnis liss b'esn withdra^vii bv fbs isiiDusiied order. ^Io oider asto CQsts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge