HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 'Writ Petition (S) No. 4990 of 2007 Krishna Chand Nayak S/o Som Ram Nayalg aged about 39 years working as watennan, Governmcnt Higher Secondary School, Jamgaon, RIO Patrapali, Tahsil Raigaxh District Raigarh (CG). 2. Ugan Sai, S/o Late La! Sai, aged about 46 years, Working as waterman, Govemmcnt Higher Secondary School Jamgaon, R/o Jamgaon Tahsil Saraugarh District Raigarh (CG). 3. Heera Lal Sao, S/o Gokul Prasad Sao, aged about 39 years working as watemlan Government Higher Secondary 'Godam, R/o Buhga, Tahsil Raigadi, District Raigarh (CG). 4‘ Brijmohan Singh S/o Badri Prasad Singm aged about 39 years working as Peon Government. Higher Secondary School, Ulkhar (Sarangarh) R/o Banjan' Tahsil Smngarh District Raigarh (CG). 5. Mohit Ram Sant Ram, aged about 49. ycars working as Peon R/o Orada Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarll (CG). 6. Bhuan Lal Toppo, Sio Daulat Ram Topoo, aged about 46 years working as Peon, Government Higher Secondary School, Kosir R/o Banora Tahsil & District Raigarh (CG). 7. Ku. Pusplata Sidar D/o Shri Akbar Sidar, aged about 46 years, working as watennan, Government Higher Secondary School Tarkela R/o Tarkela Tahsil Raigarh District Raigarh (CG). 8. Tika Ram S/o Sakhi Ram, aged about 46 years, working as Peon R]o Talisil Sarangarh District Raigarh (CG). 9. Mohan Lai Yadav S/o Heera Lal Yadav, aged about 42 years working as Peon R/o Sarangarh Tahsil Sarangarh District Raigarh (CG). VERSUS PETITIONERS BEn§_P_._Q.N__1)_E_,.N_'§§ : 1. State of Chhaitisgarh Through the Secretary, School Education Depanment, DKS Bhawan, Mantrlaya, Raipur (CG). 2. Director, Public lnstwction Department, Raipur (CG). 3. Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). 4. District Education Officer, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Prateek Shanna and Shri Harish Khutiya, Advocates for the petitioners. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 14m of February, 2008) 1. Shri Prateek Shanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in this petition is as to whether pay scale of the petitioners can be reduced behind their back, without. aiTording opportunity 77% of hearing to the petitioners to put forward their cases. Leamed counsel iimher submits that the. identical issue involving identical faots came up before this Court in W.P. No. 215212002 (Sam Kumar and otheis Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others). This Court held that reduction of pay scale without affording an opportunity of hearing is punitive and visits with civil consequences. 2. Shri Satish Gupta, Learned Govt. Advocate.“ appearing for the State submits that the facts involved in this petition is identical to that of in the matter of W.P. No. 2152/2002 (Sant Kumar and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others). Thus, this matter appears to be squarely covered by decision of this Court passed in the matter of (Sant Kumar and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) (Supra). 3i Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents/State of Chhattisgarh preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17122/2006 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others Vs. Sant Kumar & others) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, challenging the order dated 18.01.2006 (supra), passed by this Court and the same has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Coutt vide order dated 09. 10.2006 after condoning the delay. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submits that this case is squarely covered by the judgnent and order dated 18.01 .2006 passed in the case of Sant Kuniar and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (Supra). Thus? the impugied order dated 04.10.97 (Annexure P/3), is bad in law, being punitive in nature and passed without aEording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employees (petitioners) for putting forward their caSeS. The petition is accordingly allowed. Impugted order dated 04.10.97 (Annexure P/3) is quashed. The petitioners are entitled to regular pay scale from the date the same have been withdrawn by the impugned order. No .W order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge