@ ($9 S.B. (Service Matter) IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) Single Bench WRIT PETITIONS} NO. f3 $%2009. r PETITIONER: x/ @drakala Bhagat, wife of Late Khageshwar Ram, aged about 35 years, residence of Bataikela, (Kansabel) Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. x“ VerSu S 1. ”/S‘fate of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ,v 2. Commissioner, Aadivasi Vikas, Raipur. / 3. Collector, Aadim Jati Kalyan Branch, Jashpur, Tahsil and District Jashpur (The then Raigarh) Chhattisgarh. 4. Assistant Commissioner, Aadivasi Vikas Tribal, Jashpur (The then / Raigarh) Chhattisagrh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Lg; HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BIL-ASPUR ;—/ Writ Petitiox1 (S) No. 1322 0f 2009 Petitioner Chandrakaia Bhagat V€rsus Réspondents State of ClLha‘ttisgarh 82; othm‘s WRIT PETITEON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTETUTION OF ENDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J:) hi C. Jayant K. Rae, Advocata for th€ pétitio116r. Shxi M. P. S . Bhaytia, Deputy Govt. Advocata for the respmldanf. s (Passed on this 3rd day of Februaiy, 0 10) 2 With the consmlt of the parties, the matter is heard fmally. 2. Challenge 1‘11 this petition is to the order dated 4.10.1997 {Annexure P/ 1). Learhed counsel appearng for the petitioner ubmits that the husband of the petitioner wae apponted on 10.10.1989 (Annexure P/ ) as contingency paid Watchman. After completion f three years, the husband of the petitioner was granted regular pay scale by order dated 30. 12. l§93 (Aimexure P/6). By the impugned order dated 4.10.1997, passed by the respondent No.3, the benefit of regular pay scale was Withdrawn in an arbitraiy manner, without affording an oppouni of h 4. Learned coupeeppeiin for the parties submit tat. the issue involve in the present ease is squarely covered by the judgment dated 18th January, 2006, passed by this Court in Sant Kumar oz, others Vs. State of Chattisgarh & others} and the order dated 29th October, 2009, passed by this Court in Gauri Sha$ar Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 8r, others? 5. Tyearned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the simdar order may he passed, subject to verification of facts, earing. 1 WPNO. 2125/2002 ‘ WP.(S} No. 6205/2009 Si G R D E R gamlg i s i 2 o rttv siaag h d \ asto Whather th€ husbaild of thug pgtitioner has 0btaij16d the excess amount on misrspresentaiian or misleading the fact. 6. I have heard Earned counsel appearing for the parties, paused 1i1e pleadings a11d documents appended Thereto. 7. The issue involved in the case is that the petitioner was granted regular pay. scale way back and withcut aii‘ordmg any opportunity of healing to the petitioner, the same has been Withdrawn In Sam Kumar (supra); While dealing with the identical situation and facts of the ease, this Court observed as under: “5. 111 the facts of the present case, the petitioners have been avaih’ng regular pay scaies from various dates Tjil the impugned order dated 3,8‘2000 (Annexure P] l) was passed. The impugned order could not have been passed without issuing proper show cause notice or Without giving the petitioners a hearing in the matter. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the enquiry has already been initiated and pending enquiry the impugned orders have been passed. The impugned orders visit with civil consequences. Since the impugned orders were passed before conclusion of enquiry and without affording the petitioners a hearing, the impugned orders are bad and invaJid. 5. For the reasons stated above and in View of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Bhagwan Shukia (supra), the petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. The petitioners are entitled to regular pay scales accordingly from the date, the same have been Withdrawn by the impugned orders. No order asto costs.” 8. The State Government took up the aforesaid matter to the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition. The Supreme Court dismisse the $.L.P.(C} No. 17122 of 2006 (State of Chi-laiiisgam d; Others v. Sant Kumar d; Others), upholding the ‘ decision passed by this Court in San: Kumar (supra) on 9th October, 2006. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in Sant Kumar (supra), subject to verification of facts. No order asto costs. . \ Thalrur Sdl- // z Satish K. Agnihotri Judge