HIGH CGWW‘ OF $ijHATESGi3IRH: E§Q$PER Writ Paition (Si N6 32W 0? 2W8 ?et§€ioziefs Jaqdis‘n Ram. S/o. Late Ramcihaniram‘ aged Chewkéd‘ar' Fbnut Pest 4D M£§£§ ynar': 5&3 wnrkéng Hostei, as Ja$hpun R/o. §amharia TehsiE Jashpur, Distriw ‘iashpur (C63). 2 Manohar Ram Sio‘ Shr} Madge Ram aged about 30 years; working as waterman‘Pre- mat—is Giris Hos‘EeL Aara, Riel. Aara, TehsiF )ashnur, District Jas’npur (CG). Vei’SuS ‘§, State of Chhattisgar‘n. through the Secretary, Department 9f Tribe? We!fare DVK S. Bhawam Mantraéeya, Raipur, Chhamsgarh” Conector, Aadim Jati Kaiyan Branch, dashpur, Tehe?! & District, Jashpur (The thee rxaigarh) (CG). Assie‘tant Ccmmisséoner, Aadivasi Vikas TyibaE, .Jashpw (The then. Raigarh) (QG), 4‘ Commissioner, Aadivasi Vikas Raipur {CG}. RésQonden‘xs {Wrii Petition under Articie 226 of the Conetiiuiion of indie.) SB: Hen’hie i‘v’ir. $atish K. Agnihota‘i, J. ‘§%E§é§ii5ShriR‘KT'Kntiniii/a, counsei for the petitioneri Shri Amn Sao. Govt. Advocate fo? the State. GR£L {3%EER (Passed en 1D“ day of July; 2608) With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard tinaiiy. t) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue inveiveoi in this eetition is as to whether pay scaie of the petitioners can be reduced behind their back, without affording opportunitv of hearing to the petitioner's to out forware their Vase 2) The brief facts of the case, in nutsheii, are that the petitioners were initiaiiy appointed on the post of Peons in the year ”“390 {Annexure P/i) and Were granted reguiar bay seaie after compietion of three years, vio’e oirouiar dateci ”i5-‘i 2- 1992 (Annexure i312) Admittediv, the reguiar pay scaie granted to the petitioners was wii‘ndn vide order dated 4-6 g9? exure W4 wiihcu't issuing an Show cause noiice or afforng an ocrtumty of hearin to the petitione ) Learned counsei appearing for ihe petitiqners submits that is case is squareiy coverec; hy he decision this Cowt in Writ Petition No 2125 o 292 ( Kamar ami oihefs V Si'a%e of ¢hhawsgarh aria miners), wiiic'n was aiioweci vide order dated 18-1-2006 and he same wa ‘hi by i—ionbie e Sureme Cou vide crder dated 9-1U—2006 passe in Seciai Leave Peiiiion (Civi‘ No. ‘17‘i2zi2006. Learne counsei funher submits that this petiii ma b disosed of in the same ierms t which ieameo‘ counsei aearing for the resondentsiStai on ne o n p facts as stated by the counsei for te petitioner. 3 hi t of . f 0 Sam s. i s uned th p rt d p i; d en y e p , o pp pe has no bjectio. Leard Government ounsei is not i a osition to controvert 4) in viw of the above, he writ pition is aiiowed in he eame ters Le, the tmpugneo‘ order dated 4-10—19§7 (Annexure PM) is quashed and the petitioners are entitieo‘ to reguiar pay soaie aooordingiy from the o‘ate, the same has been Withdrawn by the impugned order, subieot to verification of the taste. No order as to Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge COSYSt raw 14 (Am } y di po g rs h e t et t m