^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1929 of 1999 Petitioner Anao.trani Giipta, aged about 35 yeai's, son of Sliii Nai-wada Prasad Giipta, Assistaat Engiaeer, Fish Faiiaer Developiaent Agency, BUaspur Versiis Respondents 1. The State of M. P., Through the Secretaiy, Depaititient of Pisheries, Ballabh Bhawaii, Bhopal (M.P.) 2. The Director, Fisheries Department, Vmdhyachal, Bhopal (M.P.) 3, The Chairman, Fish Farmer Developaieut Agency, Bilaspur 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Fish Farmer Developnient Ageacy, ZUa Paachayat Bhawaii, Bilaspur (C.G,) ©isigleBench; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agaihotri. Shri Manoj Paraujpe, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Paiikaj Shrivastava, Paael lawyer for flie Respondents No, 1 to3. ORAL ORDER (13thJanuaiy, 2006) The followmg order oftlie Courtwas passed by Satish Ko Agsiihotri^ J, 1. The petitioner was appoiated as Assistant Enghieer vide order dated 13.3.1995 (Annexure P/1) ia fhe departraent of Fish Famier Development Agency at BiJaspur. The petitioner siibniitted a representation dated 15.3,1993 (Aiinexiire P/2) to fhe CoUector/Chairaaaii, Fish Farmer Developinent Agency, Bilaspur that fhe petitioner was entifled to the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 as the sarae was payable to ofher siinilarly <S5> situated persons, who werc workmg as Assistaat Engiiieer (CivU) iii fhe Agency. The Respondent No,2 vMe his letter dated 2.4.1993 (Annexure P/3), a-ddressed to fhe Respondent No.4 inentioned that it would be appropriate to consider the representation of one Shri Nemi Chaad, Assistaat Engineer (Civil) for grant ofpay scale ofRs. 2000-4000/-. Thereafter tlie petitioner was also graiited tlie same pay scale vide order dated 21.5,1993 (Annexure P/4) after obtamiag approval froni the Fiaance Department. Vide order dated 4,11.1996 (Annexure P/5) fhe CoUector, BUaspiu' was directed to submit his report with regaid to the graat of pay scale aad promotion to the petitioner. The Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 26.12.1996 (Annexure P/6) subniitted a detaOed iaformation wifh rcgard to grant of fhe above stated pay scale to fhe petitioner, in. which it was clearly stated that fhe petitioner was rightiy granted the pay scale of Rs, 2200-4000/-, as ofher sioiilarly situated Assistaat Engiiieers were granted the same pay scale. Vide letter dated 1.2.1997 (Annexure P/7) it was coniinunicated to the Respondent No.3 fhat having satisfied wifh the detailed infonnation subm-itted by fhe Respondent No.3, tiie file stood closed by the State GoveraDient. The petitioner received letter dated 7.4.1999 (Annexure P/8) whereui the order dated 21.5.1993 grantiiig pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- to fhe petitioner was caaceUed and fhe petitioner was graiited pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/-. It was fiirther directed fhat tiie excess payinent inade to fhe petitioner by virtue of fhe order dated 21.5.1993 be recovered -^,^Bt^ at fhe rate of Rs. 1000/- p,m. Bemg aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constittitiou of India prayiiig fhat the order dated 7,4.1999 (Annexure P/8) aiid onder dated 7.4.1999 (Annexurc P/9) be qiiashed, This Coiul wlnle admitting tliis petitiou for hearmg on 3.5,1999 granted stay of fhe impugned commiinication Annexure P/8 aud conseqiiently Aunexurc P/9 was also stayed. Shri Manoj Paraajpe, leamed cozmsel for fhe petitioner submits that the iiiipiigned order reducmg pay scale of the petitioner from Rs. 2200-4000 to Rs. 2000-3500 mvolves civil conseqiiences aud fhis onler cannot be passed wifhoiit show cause. notice and withozit graating aii opportzinity ofhearmg to flie petitionen The petitioner has enjoyed fhe euhanced pay scale from May, 1993 tiU April, 1999 aad as siich no oi-der prejudiciag interest of fhe petitioner caa be passed withoiit affording aa opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put his case. Shri Paiikaj Shrivastava, leanied couiisel for fhe respondents/State, per coiiti'a, siibmits tliat the Assistaiit Engineera who are appomted fhrough PiibUc Service Commission are entifled to the pay scale ofRs. 2200-4000 and other Assistaut Engmeers Uke the petitionere are entifled to only flie pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/ -. Be tliat as it may, aay order which iavolves civil conseqiiences, need to be passed after providuig sufficient oppoitunity to the employee for puttiag zip his case, In the present case, admittedly, no show caiise notice was issued before the iiOLpugned orders were passed. 7. The Supreme Court m Bhagpragi Shukla Vs. Uaiosa of ladia asad others (AIR 1994 SC 2480), where fhe petitioner's basic pay was reduced froni Rs. 190/- per mouth to Rs. 181/- per month has held as under:- <The appellant has obviously been visited wifh civU cousequeuces biit he had been graated no opportunity to show cause against the rednction of his basic pay, He was not even put on notice before his pay was reduced by fhe departmeiit aad the order came to be made behitid his back withoiit foUowing aay procediire knowii to law. There has, fhus; been a flagraat violation of fhe prmciples of natiiral justice and the appellaiit has been made to suffer huge fiiiancial loss withoiit beiag hesTd. Fair play ia action warrants that no siich order which has the effect of aa employee suffering civi! consequences should be passed wiflioiit putting fhe concenied to uotice aiid giviag him a heariug ui the matter/" 8, The facts of the present case are squarcly covered by the decision offhe Supreme Court ia the case ofBhs^rasi Shiakla (supra). 9, For fhe reasons stated above, fhe petitioii is aUowed. The impugned oiders dated 7.4.1999 (Annexure P/8) aad 7.4.1999 (Annexure P/9) are quashed and set aside, No order as to costs, Certified copy, as per Rules, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur