(^?l^z- S.B. (Service Matteri !N THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATnSGARH) W1UT PETITION(S^ NO.^^^-/2010. 1 PETITIONER: Rakshpal Gupta, son of Vishnu Charan Gupta, aged about 44 years, working as Peon, Govt. Mukunddeo Higher Secondary School, loing, Tahsil and District Raigarh. versus Respondents lf State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, Department of School Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Distnct Education Officer, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3. Collector, Raigarh, Dista-ict Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,;^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR pE'n'noNER RESPONDENT8 WRIT PETITION (8) No. 4207 of2010 Rakshpal Gupta. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETmON UNDER AIHICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble SSm Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Sliri CJ.K.Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri N.N.Roy, Panel La^yer forthe State/respondents. Oi<DEM(ORAL) (Passed on 18th day of Janiiary, 2011) Leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioner submits that tfae petitioner was gt'anted regular pay scale w.ef 03.07.1994 (Aimexure P/2) as indicated in his ser^ice book. l^hereaften the reguiar pay scale was withdrawn. Subsequently, it was restored by order dated 06.11.2004. In support ofliis contention that eariien the pay-scale was withdi-awn, the petitioner has not produced any dociime.ots except the selfsatiie statement and luilfaer, inference to be drawn from the subsequent order dated 06.11.2004. Sliri Rao further submits that the issue mvolved herein is that if regular pay scale is granted the same caimot be withdrawn withouf fbllowi.ng the principles of .natural justice, is applicable to fhe isistant case also. Shri Roy, leamed counsel appeaiing for the State/respondents submits that for want ofrelevant documents, the State is not in a position to respond to the averments made by the petitioner. /'..-•^, '^ fl.^^^i I V®^£1:11 ,^ ^..^ ^ ^ 'lf^ v^s^^/ ~%.^^yw^y :""^S!S!J^';^>' 6. Be that as it may, the issue with regard to withdrawal ofthe regular pay scale without alfording an opportunity ofhearmg came up fbr consideration before this Coml m the matter of Sant Kumar & Others v. State ofChhaUisgarh & Others1, wherein it was heldthat re,gular pay scale graiited earlier could not be withdrawn without afibrding proper opportunity ofheai'ing. Tlie matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. The Siipreme Court, aftei* condoning the delay, dismissed the special leave petition preferred by the State Govemment. Since the facts ofthe petition are not clear Irom the documents tlled by the petitioner, fherefbre, this Court may not be in a position to resoive the factual disputes. Tlius, the State/respondents are directed to verify the facts and if it is found that regular pay scale granted to the pctitioner had been withdrawn earlier without affording an opportunity of hearing, the may be considerd m the ligtit <^f Scmt Kumar for paymQ^t ofdifference of salary fmm the day ofwithdrawal ofthe pay scale tiil it was restored. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order asto costs. __ ^l- „ ..: SatisbK.Agnihot" Amit 1 W.P. No. 2125/2002, decided on 18* Januaty, 2006