\ i^^^il0^ XR SigM. P. STATE AEMIffl 3T5A'?IVE TRIB I.aJi BEKTCH AT H.ffPUS O.A.NO. of 1998 Teelsaautt Mishra S/o Prem Nidhl—Mishra age<3 about 36 yrs. Driver,^ Asstt.ca-nmissioner Tribunal ®elfareDeptt. ftti ga rh o£st. Bai ga ih M. P« yss.sas aESPOHDMTSj (l5 (2) (35 l* '£he s-tate of Hadhya Psadesb-,. Througb- Sectetaiy, TElbal welfare Septt^ of H.P.. iitellabh B'hawan,Bhopal, M.g. 2. additional collector, Ralgarh, Distt. iteigaxti.' M.P. 3. asstt. eoaimissioaer, Tri.bal wel fa re oeptt. Sal ga rh, Dl. stfc.' aaiga rh. M. P. ^Sl3!:e^SON' J?HBSR_.SE& @|_lg_OP_ffiB .a^ [Hrs'ra^3i:VE iHTBgNsi, xci,::l'lt98"5';": gE^rT-s ey'^FPi.ieAare^ ElSSS2£-aSS-2£-MS-^£££M2S- AS glven in t'ne cause tlUe. PAK2SGUIiAilS 'e? ®E•.RESPGETBgEr'rSs as given l.n the cause title. £AgSS£ARS;:®F^_2HE_©i®E R ^aGAINST - WHISI-SB JSEPLXC A'SS.QS I S MABE ' . • I-l. i.11 c- Order sro. Dated Passea by 7050/Est./Eri.bal welfase/ 97-98/Itelgar'a 4.10.97(Apnexti.ire .a-35 ^ A<3di tional Col lecto r, Balgarh. ' 2nd .gage.. ^y,^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR f.....\ APPLICANT RESPONOENTS WRIT PETITIQN fS) No.2S26of20(Ki Teekadutt Mishra S/o Pran Nidhi Mishr^ aged about36 yrs. Driver, Asstt. Gomimsadner Tnfiunal l WeHareDeptt. RaigarhDist RaigaA M.P. VERSUS..,. .: ^ .. ::, ' : • : 1. The State of Madiya Pradesh, ThrouA - ; Sea-etaiy, Tribal Wel&re Deptt. ofM.P., ^aHabh Bhawan, Bhopal, M.P. 2. Additional Collector, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarii M.P. 3. Asstt. Conimissionei, Tribal Welfare 'Deptt. Raigarii, Distt. Rai^rhM.P. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIYE TRIBUNALACT, 1985 ' : ' SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri. J. Present: ShriY.V.RamanRao,Advocatefor1hepetitioner. Shri AnmSao,GovemmentAdvocate,fortheState/respondents. QRALO»»ER (Passed on 24tt'<3ayQ£.Iune,2Q08) With tiie consent ofthe parties, th&matter is taken up for hearing fiiially. The petitioner was mitially appointed on Ifae post QfDriver as contingenoy paid employeeon 02.03.1991 (/\mie3nire A/l). Later on,vide orderd^ed 23.7.19^7 (Annexure A/2); the petitioner was granted benefit of regular pay scale. Thereafter, ttie beneflt of regular pay scale was withdrawn vide order dated klO.1997 (Annexure A/3), admittedly, without shpw-cause-notice to ttie petrtioaer. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner subnaits that the issue involved in tfais petition is asto whetiier pay scale ofthe petitioner can be reduced behind his back, without affording oppoitunity ofhearmgto the petitioner to put fbrward his case. Leamed counsel further subniits that the ideiitical issue (aae yg befwe this Gourt in W.P. No. 2125/2002 (SantKumarand otihiersv.State of Chhattisgarh aiid olhers). This Court held that reduction ofpay scale VMfhput , -'fs.S.i-?^-" -^^.. lll affording an opportunity of hearing is punitive and visits with civil consequences. Shri Sao, 3eamed Govemment Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that the question of law involved in this petition is identical to fhat of in fhe matter of Sant Kumar aad others (supra). Thus, this matter is squarely covered by decision ofthis Court passed in the matter ofSant Kumar and others {supra). Shri Y.V.Raman Rao further submits that the respondent/State of Chhattissarh preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17122/2006 (State ofChhattisgarh & Others v. Sant Kumar & Others) before fhe Hon'ble Supreme Court, challenging the order dated 18.01.2006 (supra'), passed by fhis Court and the same has been dismissed by fhe Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.10.2006, after condoningfhe delay. Leamed counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the judement and order dated 18.01.2006 passed in the case ofSant Kumar and ofhers (sv.pra). Thus, the impugned order dated 04.10.1997 (Annexi're A/3) is bad in law; being punitive in nature and passed without affording an opportunity ofhearmg to the concemed employee (petitioner) for putting forward his case. subject toverification offacts. Taff petition is accordingiy aliowed. Impugned order dated 04.10.1997 (Annexiire A/3) is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale from the date the same has been withdrawn by the impugned order. No order asto :osts. Sd/- .Satish K. Agniliotri Jadge !k.