.-'^. ^" /o /.<>•'•; "1>y^1 ^^^ 5^6tf-p"' ^x^. ^" CJ? \^-^V- S.B. (Service Mattert IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION(S) N0. ^L//2010. PETIT[QNER: Girija Bai Chouhan, wife of Late Shiv Lal Chouhan, aged about 29 years, residence of village Hardi, Post Madwa, Tahsil Dabra, District Janjgu-- Champa, Chhatdsgarh. versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of School Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. District Education OfBcer, Distanct Raigarh, Chhatdsgarh. 3. Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ~ff ^.. "'»>. ltB« 1 '"1; : ^\--\i iS~^- •.J-" '-.v/U-t j^. r- .-~t s 3; : ri — •U/' i W' i; i) ; 1 S WR!T PET'TIQN <S) N0. 6u4£E.201Q P^TITIf^M^^ Qir'is 3ai Chouhar V?sr%i a \^^ ^^-^wi RESPONDENTS .Qt^sf^t r^f p,hh?atticsr?;=ir'h ^ ni'n.? ^-.- (, t«(^ G ^I \/ i li idi.liO^&i: i i <-K '-i~/ f.s i'-i.ii ^ o 3. (Writ Petltlon under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Slngie Bsnch : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri C.Jayant K. Rao, Advocate for the pstitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer forthe State. ORDER rORAL') (Passed on this 25th day of April, 2011) Heard learned counsei appearina for the parties. Sy this petitlon, the petitioner sseks a direction to the res; authoriiies to arant reauiar pav scale from the date the same has been withdrawn l.e. 01.10.2002 to 6.11.2004. Accordlng to the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner was sppointed in the Education Department, Raigarh on 10.07.1995 on contingency basis as Chowkidar. After compieting three years of satisfactory services, the husband of the petitloner was granted the benefit of reguiar pay scale and the ssme continued tiii. 31.09.2002, the husband of the petitioner was granted advantage o'f reauiar pav scale as per the drcular dated 15.12.1992. Thereafter. the respondents vide order dated 01.10.2002 ("Annexure P-4) withdrevv the reguiar pay scale granted to t'ne petltloners husband ;n an arbltrary manner, without affording an 'opportunity of hearing. However, on a representation, it was restored by order dated S.1 1.2004 (Annexure P-5). Learned counsei appearing for the parties submit that the tssus Invosved in the present case is square'y covered by the judgment .iyi',&. % ! .'-'' : ;-""~'"^ ^ i 1 '-\ ^. 'i'ss"!r...y ''•<!'> .-:y ^^Sea^ i^. dated 18 January, 20Q6, passed by this Court in Sant Kurnar & Ofters v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and the order datec 29th Ociober, 2009, passed in Gauii Shankar Yadav v. State of Chhat£sgarh& Others". Learned counsei appearing for the respondents submits that ths simi!er order may be passed, subject to verificatlon of fects, asto whether the husband of the petitioner has obtained the excess amount on misrepresentation or misleading the fact. The issue involved in the case is that the petitioner was grsnted reguiar pay scaie way back and v/ithout affording any opportunity of hearinci to the petitioner, the same has bean withdra'A'n. in Sant Kumar (supra), whi'e dealing v.'ith the identical situation and facts of t'ne case, t'nis Court observed a-s under: "5. !n the facts of t'ne present case, the petitioners have been availing reguiar pay scsles from various aates ti!l the impugned order dated 3.8.2000 (Annexure P-1) was passed. The impugned order could not have been passed without Issuing proper >how cause notice or without giving the letitioners a hearing in the matter. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the enquiry has already been initiated and pendlng enquiry the irnpugned orders 'nave been passed. The impugned ordars visit with civil consequences. Since the • impugnsd ordsrs wsre passsd bsfore conclusion of enquiry and without affordinj the petitloners a hearing, the impugned orders are bad and S. For the reasons stated above, and in vlew of the decision of the Supreme court in cass of Bhagwan Shukia (supra), the petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. The petitioners are entitled to reguiar pay-scaies accordingjy from the date, the same have been vvithdrawn by the .impugned orders. No order asto costs." 'W.P.No.2125/2002 -W.P.iS) NO.S205/2009 The State Government took up ths aforesaid . matter to the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P.(C) No.17122 of (State of Chhattlsgarh & Others v. Sant Kumar & Others), upholding ths dscision passsd by this C-ourt in Sant Kumar (supra) on 9 October. 2006. For the reasons stated hereinabove the petition is aliowed in terms of the order passed in Sant Kjjmar (supra), subject to verification of fats. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ok