IGH COURT OF CHHATT! GARH BILASP WRIT ?ET!TION ($) N$ 187? OF 2009 I: 2 §PETiTlONERS } . Santosh‘Kumar Chouhan son of Shri Panthu Ram Chouhan aged about 43 years Workmg as Chowkldai' (Penn) Govt High School Usrout TahsH an Blatant dalgarh (CG) Shn La! Sidar son of Shn Samaru Ram aged about 35 years orkmg as Waterm n (Peon) Govt Girls Higher Seconda Schaoi Kusmura, TahSIl and Distnct Raigarh (CG) Mahendra Kumar Sldar, son of Drid Singh , Sidanaged about ‘38 years’,working jas Watermaa Govt Higher Secondary School Tarapur Tahsil and; District Ralgarh (CG) Jagannath Prasad Dadsena, son of Batak Ram Dadsena, aged about 41 years, workihg as Peon, Govt Higher Secondary Schooi, ‘lMura, Tahsil‘ Kharsiya; Distric R‘aigarh (CG). Versus State of Chhattrsgarh through Secretary, Department of School Educatlon D KS Bhawan Ralpur (CG) Director Lok Shrkshan Sanchanalaya (Pubhc Instructions Department) Ralpur i. a (CG) Collector Raigarh DistrictRatgarh (CG) DrstnctEducatron‘Offcer Rargarh Drstrrct Rargarh (CG) v 1 , (Writ petition under Artrcle 226 of the Constitution of lndia) Single Bench ' Hon’ble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J Presenth Shn CJK Rao and Shn Hansh Khuntiya counsel for the petitioners Shri Y8 Thakur Dy Adv General wrth Shrr Arvrnct Dubey, Paoel Lawyer for the State ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 10m day of April, 2009) Learned oouneet appearing for the petitioners submits that the faots and question of law rnvolveti In the present case are Similar to that of rn W P (S) No 3516 of 2W8 (Mongra Bar 'Vlahant and Another vs State of Chhattrsgarh and Others) thus this petition may be drsposed of rn the ' same terms H UR 1 d t RESPONDENTS u? ’ FJ“gAA g 2) Shri Thakur teamed Dy Advootate General appearing with ‘Shri ‘Arvmd Dubey learned Pane! Lawyer submits that on the facts It Is slmnar vand the queshon of law has also been sJttled but there Is delay m fling thls l petition therefore srmrlarrelref cannot granted. £ 3) l have heard learned counsel ap earlng for the parties perused the pleadlngs and the deeuments aepended thereto r4) lt ls admitted positron that the petrtloners were appornted as Chowkrdar Peon on contmgency basls at the Collectors rate Thereafter the petltroners were granted regular pay scale as per the demsron of the : Government w.e.f. 25-7-1994 and 22-7-1 994. Subsequently, on 4-10-1 997 the grant of regular pay scate was withdrawn without affording an opportunrty of hearing to the petltroners Thereafter on the request of the petitioners by order dated 6-11-2004 (Annexure — PM) regular pay scate was again granted to them The questron asto whether the regular pay scale granted earlrer can be Withdrawn wrthout affording an opportunity of hearmg to the employees who have emoyed the sald facility on the basls of I deorsron taken by the employer and not on the basrs of any misrepresentations of the petitioners is no longer res integra 5) ln Sant Kumar and Others vs State of Chhattrsgarh and Others this Court observed that reduction of pay scale Without affording an opportunity of hearing is punitive and Visns With cwrlconsequences. Against the order passed in Sant kumar (supra) the State preferred a StP (C) No 171 22f2006 before the Hon'bte Supreme Court and the same has a been dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 9-10 2006 after condoning the delay. This ease is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Sant kumar (supra). > 6) As far as the objection ‘ofthe learned State counsel aboutithe maintainability of the petitionon account of delay and laches is concerned. there is no statutoiy limitation infiling the writ petition; however, iftherle is inordinate and unexplained laches and delay whereunder thirdpaity interest has been created the pebtrons are not entertained as the petitioner had slept over his right fora tong period ln the present case admittedly there is a delay however taking into consideration of the fact that grant of regular pay scale was restored subsequently it cannot be held that any third party has been created Moreover regular pay scale was ,r ‘ WP No.2125 of 2002 (decided on 18-1-2006) i : " ‘ ‘ g E i " ‘ r : r ’ i ‘ i x J. I, I x V granted no: an misrepresentation of the petitioners therefore the petrtreners cannot be hetd as guilty ccordingly, the objection of the learned State counsei With regard to maintainability on account of delay ‘ and laches is rejected ‘1 7 i a ) in View of the foregoing and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove the petition is allowed lmpugned order elated 4 10-1997 is quashed The petitioners are entitled to regular pay scale from the date the same has been Withdrawn by the impugned order til regular pay scale was restored l o order asto oos N ts , V Sd/- tyatlshK Agnlhotrl < K ‘