HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘v‘Jrit Petition (S) No. 4479 of2007 Lmmlmdas Deewani aged about 47 years? S/o Sukaldas Daewan, Occup. Pton, in the departmental of Tribal, Navzen Snyukt Adiwasi Ashrany Rajpur, District Raigarh (CG) VERSUg RESPONDENTS x‘ The State of ChhattiSgarh, Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Deparimen‘t, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, TehSi! and Distt. Raipur (CG). The Coxnmissioner, Tribal Department, Tehsil and Distt. Raigarh (CG). 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Raigarh, Dlstt Ralgarh (CG) 4. The Collector, Tuba] Welfare Branch, Dmmct Reugarh (CG) b). (WRIT PE'ITI'ION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONST] l U l ION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Rupesh Sln'ivastava, Advocaie for the petitioner. Shri AS, Kac‘nh‘waha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed an wm of Feheaary, 26%) Qllrl Rupesh Slmvas’tava learned cmmael appearuw t‘or the petitioner submits that the 1ssue mvolved m tins petition 1s as to whether pay scale ef the petitioners can be reduced behiud their back, without aiTordilig opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case. Learned counsel further submits that the identical issue involving identical facts came up before this Court in WP. No. 2152/2002 (Sam Kumar and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others). This Court held that reduction ofpay scale without affording an oppomlnity of hearing is punitive and Visits with eivil consequences. Slm' AS. Kaohhwaha, Learned Deputy Advocate Generah appearing forthe 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 ofChhattisgarh and others) (Supra). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 _De L)x é?) Hon‘blg Suprema Court, chal1enging 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 aiier condoning the delay. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submits that this case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 18.01 .2006 passed in the case of Sant Kumar and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (Supra). Thus, the impugyed order dated'04.10.97 (Armexure Pll), is bad in law, being punitive in nature and passed without atTording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee (petitioner) for putting forward his Case. S. The petition is accordingly allowed. lmpuyed order dated 04.10.97 (Armexure Pfl) is quashed. “is petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale from the datelthe same has been withdrawn by the impugned order, No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K.Agnihotri ‘ Judge Sahu ‘