iRpnmi 11!E|US: I- I W.P. £8iN0. 16S6/2005 Kartik Ram Gupta, Aged about 29 years, S/o. F^irtaa Gupta, r/o. Viliage Nuapatenda, Tahsil Gharghoda, werking as peon in Tnbal Boys High School, Saraipalt, District Raipur iSTS 1. The Sta.te of Madhya Pradesh, Tlu-ough The Secretary, Tribsl Welfare DepartiQent, Vattabh Bhawaa, Bhopal 2. Divisional Deputy Director, Tribal Developmeat Departm.eat, Buaspur 3. CoUector , (Tribal .Braiicta Raigarh 4. Assistatit Coniaussiouer, Tribal DevelopiEent Departaient, Raigarh 5. Priacipal, Tribal Boys H^h School, Saraipali, Raigarb Shri: B.D.Guru, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharraa, Paael lawyer for the State. The petitioner was appouited on 03.01.1989 to fhe post of peon for a period of 89 days thereafter by subsequent order he was contm.ued aad by order dated 31.1.91 (Aanexure A/3) he was promoted as regular peon 11111 !1; sw'. aad was gettiag regular salary on fhe pay scale of Rs. 750 to 945/-. ^sT'he- regular pay scale granted' to fhe petitioner was caacelled by order dated 17.11.97 (Annexure A/6) smd it was apprehended fhat as he was appomted after 31.12.88 fhe respondents arc likely to termiaate llis services. Leamed counsel appeariag for the rcspondents submits that aa illterae eaquir)r has been held whereby it was found that the icgular pay scale granted earlier was not proper. Be that as it inay, regular pay scale was graated to fhe petitioner, not on the basis of aiiy inisrepreseiitation riiade by fhe petitioner, biit ou the basis ofthe consideration Jaauaiy 1993 to 1.4.1999. The said order dated 17.11.97 could not have been canceUed after a long period, without affording an. opportuni-ty of hearing to Tiim. Tbe petiuoner was not even given show cause notice to put his case before the authorities. The Suprem.e Court ia. Bhagwan Shiikla Vs. Union of India and Ofhers {(1994J, 6 Supreme Co'urt Cases 154}whUe coiisidering fhe reduction of pay of f&e employee •trom Rs. 1901- per iiionfh to Rs. 181/- per inonth has held as under:- — "The appeUaat has obviously been visited wifh civfl consequences but he had been. granted no opportunity to show cause agaiast the reduction of his basic pay. He was uot even put on notice : before his pay was isduced by the departiaent aad the order caine to be niade behiad his back without foUowing aay procedure known to law. There has, thus beea a flagrant violation of fhe priaciples of natural justice aiid the appellaiit has been inade to suffer huge fiaancial loss i,il.LI without beiag lieard. Pair play ia actioii warraats that no such order which has the effect of any employee siiiferuig civil coiisequences should be passed without puttini fh.e concemed to notice aud giviag 'him a bearing flie matter." Ifc.! ;i i-1 lu the facts of fhe present case, fhe petitioner has been avafliag regular pay scale froia various dates tiU the im.pugued order dated 17.11.97 (Anaexure P-1) was passed. The impugned order could not have been passed wifhout issuiag proper show cause notice or without giving fhe petitioner a heaiiag ia. the laatter. Leamed counsel for the respondents subinits that the enquiiy has already been iaitiated aad peadtng enquiry the impugned order has been passed. The iaipugned ori.er visits with civil consequences. Since fhe impugned order was passed befoi^ conclusion of enquiry aad without afforiing fhe petitioner a hearing, the impugned order is invaiid. For the reasons stated above and in view of the decision of the Supreine Court in case of Bhagwan Shukla (Supra) the petition is atlowed and fhe iaipugned orders are quashed. The petitioner is entitled fo regular pay scale accordnigly from fhe date, fhe saine has been wifhdrawn by tlie im.pugned order. No orders as to costs. Certified copy as per rules, pritinkerOWakeT