:13 ”H UJLRE {W i iii’i ““38 wbggg’igi A? EEL L38? Li€ Wri?» Pmitiam (S) Na. 3949 cf26% WéiTiTKGNER :Girendra Misha aged abaut 40 years; Sr’o Ltv Kapikshwa:‘ Mishra, {Eamingency Paid empleyse, working as Waiermaa, Gavemment Higher Semondary Schod, Dulduia, Disit. Jashpux‘ (CG). ’ VERL‘E‘US RES?{}?§§E§NTS :1. Slate of C‘nhattisgarh, Through tm Secretary Depaftmexxi OE Scheal Education, Dau Kaiyan Sing’n 2. Bhawam The Cui’aastor Raipur (Adan (CG). Eat: Kaiyau\{r ’1bhag) D1311. Jashpur (The $11671 Raigarh). 3. The ASsistam Commisgieaei‘, Deptt. of Trim} WeHare, Dis’tt. .‘iashpur (the than Raigarh). ti. The: Commisi‘dmer, Depth 0f Tribai Weifare, Raipur (CG). ‘ (war? .pw'nON UNDER ARTICLE 225 OF mn CONSTHUTION OF INmA) $3; Eian'hie Mr. Satish K. Amt iha’tri. J.) xf. Presem : Shri Ajay Barik, Axivocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Ac‘avoeaie Genera} fer the Static. 0mg ORDER {yagsed eEEé‘i‘ Eay ag' Juay, 239$) ”1. With fee consent ef the pai‘tieg. the matier is taken up fer §1ea1ing fmaiiy. 2. By this 13e'liticm. the geiiiioner has chaiienged t31e vaiidity of we m‘é‘er _ ciaieei 0} .03.2i){}1 {Annexusfe W4 ), whereunder the grant of reguiar pay scaie to the petitioner waS wifhéa‘awn. 3. "£26 imiispu’tabk facts, in nutshe‘ii, are that initialiy the petitkmer was; apmir‘ited as Waterman m Govemment Higher Secondary Schnai. Duiduia, Distt. Raigarh {CG} cm 27.05.1991 in the cotatingency estatjiisiiment after pmper selection. Subseq1\emiy, after cempietien of three years, he was gamed regaiar pay Scaie by oriier éated 22.01%. Thereafter. by order dated {)1.G3.2001 (Annemre 15/4), regular pay scaie granteé to the petaticmer, was withdrawn wittmut attbrding an agportuttity ot‘hean‘ttg or assigning any reason. 4. Shri Batik. teatime ceunsei appearmg fer the petitioner Submits that the iSsue invetved in this petition is} 21S to whether pay seate of the petitioner can be rerfmced behind his back, without affording /’2 opportunity of hearing m the petitianer to put forward his case. Learned counsei further submiis ihat the identical issue invoiving ide‘nticai facts came 1m befure this Ccux‘t in WP. N0. 2152/2002 (Sam Kumar and Otaers Vs, Statc 0f Chhattisgarh and others). This Court $16k? i§1at reductmn 6f pay scaie without afibrding an opportunity of hearing is punitive mad visits with civii consequences. ‘snn Timkur, ieameé counse} appearing for the State submits that the quesiion of iaw invo’ived in this petition is icienticd to that of in the matter of Sant Kumar and others (Supra). Thus, this matter is squarely %‘ covered hy decision ot‘this Court passed in the matter of Sant Kumar and others {septa} 6. Shri Batik further su‘omits that the respondents/State of Chhattisgarh preferrec'i a Special Leave Petition (Civii) No. 't7122/2006 (State of Chnattisgarh & Gthers Vs. Sent Kumar & others) before t‘ne Hon‘ble Supreme Court, chatienging the orrier dated 18‘0 l .2006 (Supra), passed by this Court and the same has been dismissed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court Vide order (Stated 09" 10.2006 after condoning the detay. ‘Leameti counsel appearing for the parties jointly submits that this case is square‘iy covered by the jurigment and order dated 18.01 .2006 passed in the case or“ Sant Kumar and others (Supra). Thus, the impugned order dateri Gt 03.2001 (Annexure PM), is bad in taw, being punitive in nature and passed without attording an opportunity of hearing to the eoneemec‘i empioyee (petitioner) for putting forward his case. ”the petition is accordingly aiioweti to the above extent. Impugned order oiateri 01.03.2001 (Annexure PM) is quashed. The petitioner is entitied to reguiar pay seaie from the date the same has been Withdrawn by the impugneri order. Cost easy. /’ " K Satish’K.Agnihotri Judge Sdl-