HIGH C»URTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPIIR WntPetttion(S)Nu.l715oir2W}8 p.ff.TiTTONER : Lalaram B_atbiya, aged about 43 years, S/o Budliram Rathiya, Occup. Rasoiya, in ihe Department of Tribal, Primary Schooi Sonbarsha, Block ICiiargiya, Digtrict Raigarfa (CG). ^TT.RSTTS P-W.SpQNDENTS • 1. The Stafe of Chhattisgarli, Tbj-niigh the Secretary Dapartment of Tribal weifare, Mantrlaya, DKS Building, P-aipur, Tehsil and District B.aipur (CG). 2. The Commissioner, Tribal Department, Tehsil and District S_aigarh (CG). 3. Tae Assisfam Commissioner, Tribal DevelopmentRaigam , ^ Distriet Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). 4. The Coilector, Tribal Wetfare Branch, District Raigarh m'RFT PETmON UNDER ,WTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA) (SB^HQn'Ue Mi^SatishiC. AgBJIiotn^J.) Present : Shfi Rnpesh Sln-ivastava, Advocate forfhe petitionei'. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. [, ORDER " (Passed ou 20°'ofMaich, 2008) 1. With the cotisent ofttiCi oartics. the m^-tte*' is takcn uo for hc'arinff finailv. 5. Sliri pjjpesh Shrivastava., leanicd coijnsel appearing for the petitionef siibmits that thc issue involved in this petitioii is as to ^vhether pay scale of the petitione'r ean be redi'ccid behtB^ their back, without af^>rdmg opportiinity of hisariiig to the petitioiiflr to put forward his case. Leanied counsel fi.irther sijbmits that the identical issue invo!ving identieal faets came up befbre t!us Court in W.P No. 2152/2002 (Sant Kumar and others Vs. State ofChhattisgarh and others). This Court held that reduction ofpay seale without affording an opportuiiity ofhearing is punitive and wsits with .civil conseauences. ':• 3. Sliri A.S. KaclAwaha, L^amed Deputy A.dvoeate General appearing for the State submits that the question oflaw involved <n tliis petition is identical to that of in fhe matter ofW.P. No. 2152/3002 fSant Kiimar and others Vs. State of Cbhatti^sarh and othersV Thus- thts xnatter atvnea?^ to be souarelv eovered bv deicisioii ofthis Coiul" r^assed in the matter <^f*/Sa?it Kiuiiar and others ^?Ts. State ofChliattiss^-rh and otbcrs^ fSupraV 4. Leamed counse! for the petitioner subniits that the respondents/State of Chliattissarh oreferred a Soeeia! Leave'Petition f'Civilt No. 17122/2006 ;; [f' /State of Chhattisgarh & Otfaers Vs. Sant Kumar & others) before the Hon'bie Suprenie Court, ehaUeiiging the order dated 18.01.2006 (supra), passed by this Court and the same has been disniissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.10.2006 afier coadoning the de!ay. Leamed counsel appearing for the parties jointly gubmits that this case is squareiy covered by the judgment and order dated 18.01.2006 passed inthe case ofSant Kumar and others Vs. State ofCSiliattisgarh a-"d others (Supra). Thus, the impugiied order dated 04.10.97 (Aanexijre P/l), is bad in law, being punitive in natiire and passed wthout aSbrding an opportiinity of hearing to the concerned employee (petitioner) for putti'ig fon'vard his case. Tlie petition 1s accordiiigiy allowed. Impugned ofder d^t^i 04.10.97 (Aniie?aire PA) is quashed. Tlie pietitioner ia entitled t" regiilar pay scale ^om the datc; the s^nie has been ^vithdra'^/ii by the inipugiied order. No order asto costs. '',-^-,1 >UliU Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri j Judge rv ^- :.rs""-i. .-.-^--