^yr HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A1 BILASPUR PETITIQNER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) No. 3510 of2008 : 1. Mongra Bai Mahant W/o Jeevan Das Mahant, aged about 35 yeai^, workmg as Peon m Gov(. Natwar Singh Higher Seoondaiy School Raigwrh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Uttam Kumar S/o Dhir Das, aged about 38 years, working as Peon in Govt. Natwar Higher Secodary School, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS :- • 1. State of Chhattisgarh throu^li the Secretary, Departmesit of School Education, Dau Kal^n Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.O.) 2. Director, Public Iiistmctions I^partni^sit, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Collector, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh(C.O.) 4. District Education Officer- Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh WRn' PETITION UNDER AR1ICLE 226 OF THE CON8T1TUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'bleSaui Sattsh K. AgnUiotri, J. Present: Shri Hari<Ai KMntiya, Advocate fbr tfae petstioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Paiie! Lawyer fbr the State/respondents. ORALOR»ER (Passed oc 29U1 day of Ju!y, 2008) 1. With the consent oftiie parties, the matter is taken up fbr hearmg finally. 2. I.A. No. 1, this is att application for taking document on record. The apjAication is ordered as prayed fbr, 3. Itie petitioners were mitially appointed on the post ofPeon as contingency paid employee on 12.07.1991 (Amiexure P/l). After compl©tionofthree years of ser^ice, they were granted regular pay scale w.e.f, 21.11.1994 aiid 26,7,1994 (Annexure P/2) respectively. Thereafter, the benefit of regular pay scale was withdrawn vide order dated 04.10.1997 (Amiexure P/3), admittedly, without show-cause-notice to the petitioners. 4. The regular pay scale, which was withdrawn on 04.10. 1997 (Amiexure P/3), was subsequently granted vide order dated 06.11.2004 (Aonexure P/4). Uamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioners submits that the petitioners m<@ entitted to grant ofarrears ofregular pay scale with effect from 04.10.1997 to 06.11.2004, as the same was illegally withdrawn. Amit 8. -2- Shri Khuntiya forther subinits that the issue invoh^d in this petilion m asto whether pay scale ofthe petitioners can be reduced behind tiieir back« without affording opportunity ofhearmg to the petitioxiCTs to put fbrwwd their case. Leamed counsel farther submits that fhe identical issue cam^ up before this Court in W.P. No. 2125/2002 (Sant Kumar and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and othex^). Ilds Court held that reduction of pay seale ^thout affbrdmg an opportunity ofhearing is punitive and visits wifh civil consequenc^s. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the StaWrespondente submits that the questiori of law involved in this ^tition is identical to that of in fhe matter of Sant Kumar and others (supra\ ITius. this matter is squarely covered by decision ofthis Court passed m the matter ofSatrtKumarandothei^ (suprd). Shri Khuntiya further submits that (he respondent/State ofChhatti^garh pretOTred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17122/2006 (State ofClihattisg^-h & OtheEs v. Sant Kumar & Others) before the Hon'ble Supreme Cowt, chaBenging the order dated 18.01.2006 (supr^a). passed by this Court and the same h^ been dismissed by the Hon'ble Sup-eme Court vide order dated 09.10.2006, after condoningthe delay. Leamed counsel appearing for the partiesjointly submit tliat this case is sqimrely covCTed by tfaejudgment and order dated 18.01.2006 passed m the ca^e ofSairt Kumar and others {supra). Thus, the impugaed order dated 04.10.1997 (Annexure P/3) is bad in law, being punitive m nature and passed wifhout affbrdi3ig an opportumty ofhearing to the concemed CT3pJloy^er(petition@rs) fbr putting forward their case, subject to verification offacts. The petition is accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 04.10.1997 (Annexure P/3) is quashed. Th^ petitioners are entitted to reguiar p^ scale from the date the same has been withdrawn by fhe impugaed erder till regular pay scale was restored. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K-Agnihotri Judge