**,. &^ -\A '.:^ V BI--sGi' "-: '-^ ..-^^.J ^-^ ^H^ - J i^ "^ySl ^ 3-iS S.B. fService Matter) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITIQNLS) N0. .^26^ /2009. PETITIONER: Makar Dhwaj Pradhan, son of Shri Bhagat Ram Pradhan, aged about 46 years, working as Waterman (Peon), Hem Sundar Gupta, Govt. Higher Secondary, School, Mahapalli, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. versus Respondents ^y" .^^ sj^ ..i'' ^.^^r &-;.••• •^"'-«*:"" /••'' '/'<'^ f ^^...••••""' *?•" ,<•&•'' 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya, (Public Instruction Department), Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Collector, Raigarh, District Chhattisgsu-h. 4. District Education OfGcer, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA I'S' GN'BLB JUSTICE; PRETISKBR DIWAKER ls"rTTmwR aBSPOSOEKTS I ^ ^sTTTiT^-' i-^-r^r'ff* ^rf^-*" LJl.tW 0.1 I~i<AU.j.ici-L. State ofC.Q. Ss.Others WRIT PSTITION UMDSR A8.TICLB.22S OF •Ssi *i. Airf'i,^. U.i.' i.-^Ti' A.ppeasaaces Sliri C.J.K.Rao, coiuisel ibr the -oetitiouer. Shri ShasharA Thakur, P.L. for the State. (OQ.ft7.-"5;flOQ'i ~^r ^r f"^ tt »• Leamed counscl tbr tSie petittoner subniits that tne facts aiid question of law iavolved ia fae present case are similar to tiiat of W.P.(S) No. 3510/2008 (Mongra Bai Mahant aad Aaofher Vs. State of Chhattisgarli & Otb.ers), th.us this petition niay be disposed of ia the satne tenas. Shri Tlialiur, leamed Dy. A.G. appeariag for fhe S+ate subiaits fh.at on fhe facts it is siimlar and fhe question of law hss also been settied, but there is delay in fuiag fhis petiuou, fherefore, siniflar i-elief cannot be granted. ! have beacd coua.sel appeanng for fh.e parties, perused the pleadiags and fbe docuiaents appended tliereto. !t is adzaitted positioa fbat fh.e petitioner was appoiated as Watemiaa (Peon) oa Coittiageacy basis at the Colelctor's rate. Theresfter, the petitioner was graated " "t 'S.te*^'..^ ^-l-' .^y % regular pay scale as per the decision of the Goveminent v/.e.f. 25.7.94 & 22.7.94. SubsequenUv, oa 4.10.1997 the graat of regular pay scale was wifhdrawn without affordiai aa opporTuuit}- of hearing to fhe petitioner. Thereafter, on the request of the petitioner by order dated 6.11.2004 (Annexure P/4) regular pay scale was agaia. granted to him. Ths question as to whetlter fhe regular pay scale granted earlier caa be wifhdrawn without affordiag an opportunity of hearing to tlie einployee who has enjoyed tb.e said faicffity on fhe basis of decision talceu by tb.e einployer and not on thp basis of aiiy misrepresentation of fb.e pentioner is BO longer res integra. In Saat Kiunar and Ofhers Vs. State of Chhattisgarll aiid Others1, this Court observed fhat reduction ofpav scale without affoi-ding au opportunity of hearing is puniuve and visits witti civU consequences. Against the, order passed in Saiit Kum.ar (supra), the State preferred a SLP (C) No. 17122/2006 before the Hon'ble Supreme Coiut and fb.e sam.e has been dismissed by the Supi^ine Court b;/ order dated 9.10.2006, after condomng the delav. This case is squarely covered by the judgTaent of tbis Court iu Sartt Kuiuar (supra). As far as the objection of the leamed State counsel about ffae luamtaiiiabuily of fhe petition on account of delay aad laches is conceined,.fhere is no statuton7 Imiitatioa in fiBng the writ petition, "however, if tiiere is uiorduiate >aii.d unexplained laches -aiid delay whereunder ftrud. vaity iiiterest has been created, the petition is not entertamed, as fhe petitioner had slept over Ms right for a long period. in fhe present case, a.didittedly there is a delay; however takm.; iato cousideratioa of the fact fhat grant of regu-lar pay scale w^as restored subsequenfly it cannot be lield that aiiy third < \ ' W.?. No. 2!25 of2002 (decidsd on 18.1 »OOCT "^3S? ^ party has been created. Moreover, regular pay scale was ;raiited not on misrepreseatation of the petitioner, Uierefore, die petitioner caiinot be held as guuty. Accordiitgly, fhe objection of fhe learaed State counsel with regard to rnaintainability on account of delay ajid laches is reiected. In view of fhe foresoing aiid for the reasoas laentioned 'nereiaabove, the petition is altowed. Iiapugned order dated 4.10.1997 is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to regular oay scale from. fhe date tlie same has been withdra-svn bv fhe impugiied order tffl regular pay scale was restored. No order as to costs. prhmk»D^abar .*•..•