§@%@E N ummTaTnaww ‘ ’1 W BEFORE TX-E ADP/ENISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MADHYA PRADESH RAIPUR BENCH RAIPUR M.P. ‘ : mm» mN/w v In the matter of 0.A.No.: BETWEEN Shrinlvas Nande, aged 60 years son of Shn Baijnath Nande, L D T. Primary School Sarudlh Vlllage Samdih, Block Duldula Jashpur M. P . K VERSUS m 1. State of h a pradesh threugh Secretary, Primary Education "Tribal Development, vallabh Bhawan Bhopal M.P. ‘ Dlrector, Public Education ZVallabh Bhawan Bhopa;. 3. Commssloner Tribal Development Raxgarh M.P.v » » 4. Dlstriot Co-ordlnator, v 'Trlbal Development ”Jashpur M.P. Block Education Officer v Jashpur Nagar, ‘ ‘ ~ [Jashpum ‘6. Distmct Treasury orncer 'Jashpur M P. Collector, ‘v Jashpur. APPLICATION UWER SE§TIbN 19 OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUML @CT % 9 § v m w? mm 1m v( - . L: I mm 200 m WWWIEWW $Wm B : Hon’ 4-03-2010 Shri Rahui Tamaskar, couns Sfor the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Pane! Lawye for the State. With the consent of learn v counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally. Case of the petitioner is tha while working as Assistant Teacher in Tribal Welfare Department, the peti ioner was granted pay scales from time to time at par with other Assista t Teachers but the respondent No.5 suddenly relegated the petitioner to a lower pay scaie from August 1998 on the basis that he is only matriculat Learned counsel for the pet ioner submitted that the petitioner was enjoying a particular pay scale gran ed to him keeping in View the pay scale admissible to other similarly situat d Assistant Teachers. Placing reiianoe upon communication (Annexure A-1) issued on 25-1 0-1983 by the Directorate, Public instructions, it h s been stated that grant of pay scale to the petitioner was just and in acoor ance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if at ll, the respondents were of the opinion that pay smie granted to the petiti ner were liable to be withdrawn as the same involved civil consequences, the respondents were under obligation to give opportunity of hearing to th petitioner and under any circumstance, adverse action could not have be n taken without giving due and proper opportunity of hearing to the petiti ner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that action of the respon ents in reducing the pay scale of the petitioner with effect from August, 998 is liable to be struck down on this count alone. we, sci-7%: S ble Shri Manindra Moh n Shrivastava J. 0 e XI-HC-22 am W . w.....9...3$.~.2.w..;}§3 W 200 .............................................. Wu ................................................ XLHC~22 WW,WW.W 3W nail; . NKCS.) Mi}.\%¥o;/ WW 200 W WW WW mmmm émxmaném in this view of the matter, action of the respondents in withdrawing the pay scaie of the petitioner and reiegating him to the iower pay scale after August 1998 is declared iiiega. it would be open for the respondents to give due and proper notice and pportunity of hearing to the petitioner and take decision in the mattert if ultimately, it is held that the action of reduction of pay scaie was not corr ct, the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential monetary benefits. T king into consideration the fact that the ' matter is remained pending since 2 00, it is expected that the respondents shall take decision in the case of t e petitioner in the light of observation made above by this Court. as expe itiously as possible not later than four months from the date of receipt of a opy of this order. The petition is therefore allo d. No order as to costs. Sd/- .Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Turnans 4:5