M c^ ^•liigie ?s^^_ S.B. (Service Matter) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHt WRIT PETITION(S) N0.^/^/0/2009. PETITIONER: Shyam Lal Sahu, son of Natthu Ram Sahu, aged about 40 years, Govt. Higher Secondary School Tiur, Block Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. versus Respondents <.<^ ^,^' .< ^/ /<y / l/S<-'' ./' ^•^/ <;^^/' ,^%. ^.^sr'VW ^'?^"' ^-..- .^'^ / ^' / ^../^/ <s'.^? '•^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, R^E&r, Chhattisgarh. Collector, Raigarh, District Chhattisgarh. •/' 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4. Collector, (Tribal Welfare Branch) Distruict Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ . c-4 o H3GH COURT OF CHHATTiSGH AT BiLASPUR (Hon. IVSr. Justlce PritsnRer Dlwaker) Writ Petitson (S) No. 4540 of 2009 PET3TIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS Shyam Lai Sahu. State of Chhattisgarh and others. Shri C.J.K.Rao, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur Dy. AG for the respondents/State. PETITION UNDER ARTSCLE 226 OF THE CONSTSTUTION OF SNDSA ORDER (21.08.2009) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts and question of iaw invoived in the present case are simitar to that of W.P.(S) No. 3266/2009 (Makar Dwaj Pradhan Vs. State of C.G. & Others) and therefore this petition may also be dlsposed of in the same terms. Shn' Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the state submits that on facts it is simiiar and the question of law has also been settled but as there is deiay In liiing this petition, simiEar relief cannot be granted. 1 have heard counsei for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents avasiable on record. jt is an admitted position that the petitioner was appointed on contingency basis at the Coilector's rate. Thereafter the petitioner was granted regular pay scale as 1^sy •:. :5£ST^.^--" 3f IniB^l -lr per the dedsion of the government w.e.f. 7.12.94. Subsequently on 4.10.1997 the grant of reguiar pay scaie was withdrawn without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, on the request of the petitioner by order dated 9.9.2008 (Annexure P/4) regular pay scale was sgain granted to him. The question as to whether the reguiar pay scaie granted earlier can be withdrawn without affording an opportunity of hearing to the empioyee who has enjoyed the said faclJity on the basis of the decision taken by the employer and not on the basis of any misrepresentation of the petitioner is no ionger res integra. in Sant Kumar & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (W.P.No. 2125/2002, decided on 18.1.2006) this Court observed that reductton of pay scale without affording an opportunity of hearing is punitive and visits with civii consequences. Against the order passed in Sant Kumar (supra), the State preferred a SLP (C) No. 17122/2006 before the Hon'bie Supreme Court and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 9.10.2006, after condoning the delay. This case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Sant Kumar (supra). As far as the objection of the learned State counsei about the maintainability of the petition on account of deiay and laches is concerned, there is no statutory iimitation in filing the writ petition, however, if there is inordinate laches and delay whereunder third party interest has been created, the petition is not entertained as the petitioner had siept over his right for a long period. In the present case, admittedly, there is delay, however, -^>- taking into consideration the fact that grant of regular pay scaie was recorded subsequently, it cannot be held that any third party interest has been created. Moreover, regular pay scale was granted not on misrepresentation of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held guiity. Accordingly, the objection of the Jearned State counsel with regard to maintainabiiity on account of deiay and laches is rejected. in view of the foregoing and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is ailowed. impugned order dated 4.10.97 is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to reguiar pay scale from the date the same has been withdrawn by the impugned order tiil regular pay scaie was restored. No order as to costs. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge