u HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR Fi.^ PETITIONER RESPO.N'DENTS WMT PETITION<S) No. 6181 of2007 Bhagwan Singh Thafcur, Aged about 42 years,-S/o Bliarat Singh Thakur, Occupation Service (Peon) Primary School Munund, Thesil - Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh), R/o - Bherapara, Thesil - Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS ,' : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary Departtnent of Tribal Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. Conmrissioner, Tribal Welfare Departmeiit, Raipur 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare DepartmenL Raigarh (C.G.) 4. The Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) WMT PETmpN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITOTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'bte Sliri SattehK. Agnlhotri^J. Present: Sfari Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on24ul dayof June, 2008) With fhe consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Peon as contmgency paid employee on 29.6.1991 (Aamexure P/l). After completion of three years of service, he was granted regiilar pay scale vide order dated 13.8.1997 (Amiexure P/2). Thereafter, the benefit ofregiilar pay scak was withdrawn vide order dated 12.11.1997 (Annexure A/3), admittedly, witbout show-eause-notiee to flie petitioner. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for ihe petitioner submits that the issue involved in this petition is asto whether pay scale oflhe petitioner can be reduced behind his back, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case. Leamed counsel farfher submits that fhe identical issue came up before this Court in W.P. No. 2125/2002 (Sant Kumar and others v. State of ^ u; 6. CKhattisgarh and olhers). This Court held Ihat reduetion ofpayscale without affordins an opportunity of hearing is punitive and visits with civil consequences. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits thatthe question oflaw involved in fhis petition is identical tothat ofin fhe matter of Sant Kumar and ofhers (supra). Thus, this matter is squarely coveredby decision offtis Courtpassed in fhe matter of Sant Kumar and others (supra). Shri Pandey further submits that the respondent/State ofChhattisgarh preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17122/2006 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others v. Sant Kumar & Ofhere) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, challenging the order dated 1S.01.1006 (supra), passed by this Court ahd fhe same has been dismissed bv the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.10.2006, after condoningthe delay. Leamed counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that 1his case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 18.01.2006 passedmfhecase ofSant Kumar and others (supra). Thus, fhe impugned order dated 12.11.1997 (Annexure P/3) is bad in law, beme punitive in nature and passed without affording an opportunity of hearine to the concemed employee (petitioner) for puttine forward tfasir case, subject to verification offacts. The petition is accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 12.11.1997 (Annesnu-e P/3) is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale from the date the same has been wilhdrawn by the impuaied order. No order asto costs. Sd/- SadshK.Agnihotri Judge Amit