frw^^ ,.!3'^^SfS!Sl s^^s^. fflGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGAKH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER Writ PetitionCS) No.6314 of2007 : Ramavtar, aged about 42 years, S/o Ganesh Ram, Occup. Rasoiya, in the Department of Tribal Govt. Boys Hostel, Pandri Pani, Block, Farsabhar, District Jashpur (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Department of Tribai wel&re, Mantralaya, DKS Buildmg, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (CG). 2. The Commissioner, Tribal Department, Tehsil and District Jashpur (CG). 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Jashpur, District Jashpur (CG). 4. The Collector Tribal Welfare Branch, District Jashpur, 5. Principal, Adim Jati Kalyan Balak Higher Secondary School, Pandri-Pani, District Jashpur (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmjriON OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 08 day ofJufy, 2< 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing firially. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 11.03.1995 (Annexure P/l ), whereunder the grant of regular pay scale to the petitioner was withdrawn and he was paid thereafter daily wages as per Collector's rate. 3. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that initially all the petitioner was appointed on 06.09.1991 in the contingency establishment after proper selection on the post of Cook. Subsequently; atter completion of three years, he was granted regular pay scale by order dated 09.12.94 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, by order dated 11.03.95 (Annexure P/l), regular pay scale granted to the petitioner on 9.12.94, was withdrawn without afibrding an opportunity of hearing or assigmng any reason. 4. Shri Khetrapal, learaed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this petition is as to whether pay scale ofthe P^^^^^^^^'^S^gg^n^^^^^^^S"^ 6. 8. Sahu petitioner can be reduced behind his back, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case. Learned counsel further submits tihiat tiie identical issue involving identical tacts came up before this Court m W.P.No. 2152/2002 (Sant Kumar and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarii and others). This Court held that reduction of pay scale without affording an opportunity of hearing is punitive and visits with civil consequences. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, leamed counsel appearing for the State submits that the question oflaw involved in this petition is identical to that ofin the matter of Sant Kumar and others (Supra). Thus, this matter is squarely covered by decision of this Court passed in the matter of Sant Kumar and others (supra). Shri Khetrapal further submits that the respondents/State of Chhattisgarh preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17122/2006 (State of Chhattisgarfa & 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 Court vide order dated 09.10.2006 atter condoning the delay. Leamed counsel appearing for the parties jointly submits that this case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 1 8.01.2006 {assed in the case of Sant Kumar and others (Supra). Thus, fhe impugned order dated 04.10.97 (Annexure P/l), is bad in law, being punitive in nature and passed without affbrding an opportunity of hearing to the concemed employee (petitioner) for putting forward his case. The petition is accordingly allowed to the above extent. Impugned order dated 11.03.1995 (Aanexure P/l) is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale from the date the same has been withdrawn by the impugned order. Costs easy. Sd/- ; Satish K. Agnihotri Judge &KSMSS ^y^B^j ^!^SS^