^r^»*%, '^ €P 1 COURT OF CMHATnSGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (Si No. 1521 of2<X% Petitioner Respondents Sonu Ram Sawra, aged about 42 years, son of Shri Fagu Ram Sawra; working as Gangman (Chovi/kldar), Qovemment Hgher Seoondary School - Dharamjaigarh, r/o. Chhotehardi, Post Korpani, Tah. Dharamjaigam, Distt. Raigarh (CG). Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarti, through the Secretary, Department of Sohooi Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) Director, Public Instruction Department, Raipur (CG). 3) Coilector, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG). 4) District Education Officer, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG). (Writ Petition under Articte 226 ofthe Constitution of India) SB: Hon'bte Wlr. Sattsh K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Rahu! Jha counsel for the petitioners. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. (Passed on 11-3-20(K) The petitioner was initiatly appointed on the post of Gangman (Chowkidar) and was granted regular pay soale after completion of three years. Admittedly, the reguiar pay scaie granted to the petitioner was reduced vide order dated 4-10-1997 (Annexure P/3) without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner. 2) Learned counsel appeanng for the petitioner submits that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2125 of 2002 (Sant Kumar and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), which was allowed vide order dated 18-1-2006 and the same was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23-3-2007 in Writ Appeal No.57/2007 (State Raju of M.P. (Now CG) and others Vs. Manmohan Patel and others) as well as by Hon'bie the Supreme Court vide order dated 9-10-2006 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17122/2006. Learned counsel further submit that this petition may be disposed of in the same terms, to which iearned counsei appearing for the respondents/State has no objection. Learned Govemment counsel is not in a position to controvert facts as stated by Shri Rahul Jha. 3) In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in the same terms i.e., the impugned order dated 4-10-1997 (Annexure P/3) is qua^ied and the petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale accordingly from the date, the same has been withdrawn by the impLgned order, subject to verification of the faots. No order as to costs. —~ r—--. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri