^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER8 ^y.- WMT PETITKM(S) N6.25S3 of2008 : • I. . ThAur Prasad Paifcra S/o. Negiram, aged about - 43 years, Oceupation Peoii, presentlyworkmg at Kanya Ashram, Kaya, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh(C.G.) . 2. Ghurau Ram Sidar S/o Andharam, aged about 42 years, Oceupatioh - Peon, presently working at Kanya Ashram, Kaya, Tahsif Gharghoda, District Raigarii(C.G.) 3. Tikaram Nisliad S/p Furshpram Nishad, aged about 45 years, Oc.cugation - Peon, presently workiag at Kanya Ashi-am, Kaya, Tahsil Gfaar^ioda, District Raigaih(G.G.). - : , : , .•' ? 4. ChitrasehPaikra^S/o.NanhiramPaikra, aged about ' —42yete^-<3ceugation-Peon,presCTitlyworiang^ Govfc H.S.'Sctreol GUarghoda, Districf - Raigarii ,^:1-^.: (C.G.)-.^^ : . ' •.;,.. ; 5. ^ Prasad Paikra,aged .,'^ v ^aboirt ^^%3rears> Occupation - ^Peon, preseirtly woriang'tKP^-metric Aadiwas Balak Cbhatrawas, Gfaarghoda.Distnct- Raigarh (G.G.) 6.Shi'^)rasaapaikraS/oNaiihiu'amPaikra,agedabout 39 years, OceupafiQn - Peon, presently working at Pre-metrie, Aadiwas Balak Chhatrawas. Gharghod-a, District - Raigarii (C.G.) 7. Salik Ram PaikFa S/o. Injor Smgh Pailcra, aged about - 39 years, Occupation - Peon, presently worklag at Pre-metric Aadiwas Balak Chhatrawas, Ghar^ioda; District- Raigarh (C.G.) 8. Ramgopal Mahiiane SA). Gaapat. Ram Mahilane, aged about-zl:5 years, Occupation- Peon, presently working at Govt. Girls H.S. SGhool Dhaiamjaigaril, DistrictRaigarii(C.G.) It^'I^TF'^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Tfarou^i: The Secretar>', Aadim Jati Tafha Anusychit Jati Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distriet - Raipur(C.G.) 2. The Gollector, Aadim Jati Kalyan Bi-anch, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) 3. The Commissioner, Aadim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Development Department Raipur. 4. Assistant Commissioner, Aadim Jati Kalyan Vibhag,Raigarh(C.G.) 5. The Block Education OfFicer, DhM-amjaigarh, District-Raiearh(C.G.) 6. The Block Education Officer, Gharghoda, District - Raigarh (C.G.) WRTT PETmON L'NDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SB: Hon'ble Shri Satlsh K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri P.K.Patel, Advocate for the petitioners. SliriAjay Dwivedi, Deputy Govemment Advocatefortfae State/respondents. ORALORDER w <w. (Passed on 05°'day of May, 2008) 1. With the consent offhe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. Sim P.K.Patel, leartied counsel appearmg for the petitioners submits .that the issoe involved in.this petitiori is asto whetherpay scale ofthe petitioners can be reduced behind their back, withQUt affordmg opportunify of hearing to the petitioners to put forward their case. Leamed counsel further submits fhat tfae identicalissue came up before this Court in W.P. No. 2125/2002 (SantKumar and others v. State ofChhattisgarh and ofhers). This Court held fhat r^duetion of i !Ui-,,,.i......... .,.,,.3a.:-.E.;....^.:^:;:-.:l:> ^hi-lteJ ;s_^i;jjL s\.^ ^^-_...^s,i.^l^^®isrs.^^^^ia.£1'^,s^~^^ <. .^jnit 4. 6. ^. pay scale without afibrding an opportunity ofheanng is punitive and visits wifh civileonsequences. Shri Ajay. Dwivedi, leamed Deputy Govemment Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that the question of law involved in this petition is identical to that ofin the matter ofSant Kumar and. others (supra). Thus, this matter is squarely covered by decision ofthis Court passed in the matter of Sant Kumar and o\her&(supra~). Shri Patel further submits that the respondent/State of Chhattisgarh preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17122/2006 (State ofChhattisgarh & Others v. Sant Kumar & Others) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, chatlengmg tiie order dated 18.01.2006 (supra), passed by this Court and the same has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.10.2006, after condoning the delay. Leamed counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 18.01.2006 passed mfhe case ofSant Kumar and others (supra).. Thus, tfae impugned order dated 04.10.1997 (Amiexure P/l) is bad in law, being punitive in nature and passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to fhe concemed employee (petitioners) for putting forward their case, subjecttoverification offacts, The petition is accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 04.10.1997 (Annexure P/l) is quashed. The petitioners are entitled to regular pay seale from the date fhe same has been withdrawn by the impugned order. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge •^.^••'^^s^