smgie Wench y ) 6% S‘B. (Service Matter) IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETIT10N(S) No. 'ggaB /2009. w, y WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER: Kailash Chandra Yadav, Son of Late Shri Sewak Ram Yadav, aged about 46 years, Hem Sundar Gupta, Govt. Higher Secondary, School, Mahapalli, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. versus Re§pondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. / 2. Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya, (Public Instruction Department), Raipur, Chhattisgarh. K 3. Collector, Raigarh, District Chhattisgarh. K7 4. District Education Officer, Raigarh; District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. @(AbafW‘c‘ FE§GH CémR? OF €H§n§A?T£$GH AT 3ELASPUR (Ham. Mr. JuS§$e Pmmkw mwaker} (S) W5“é€ E3e1téimn N0. 3323 ‘af 263w §ETEW$NEQ Kailash Chandra Yadav. VERSUé‘S RE$PGNBEE¥T3 taia of Chhai‘tisgarh and others. Shri Harish Khantfya ccunsel for ‘ihe pet§tioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj GA for the respondents/State. ‘2 ”HE COTiTi GF mmA § R 9 E R (‘13.07.2{‘JD§) With ‘the consen‘i of the counsei far the parties, ‘the matter is ward finaay. Cowse! for the petitioner submits that the facts; and question of Saw involved in the present case are sémttar to that WP. (S) No. 3510 of 2008 {Momma Eat Mahant and Another we. etate ef Shhatttsgarh and othere) and therefore, this petition may be disposed of in the same terms. Counset for the respondente.’$tate submits that on the facts this case is simiiar and the question of law has atso been settted but as there is delay in fiiing this petition, simiiar relief oannet be granted. Heard oeunsel for the parties, perused the pteadings and the documents amexed thereto. it is admitted positioa that the petitiener was appointed as Watei'man (Peon) on contingency basis at the Collector’s rate. Thereafter, he was granted regular payvscaie as per the deoisien of : the Government frem 1.1.1991. Subsequehtiy, on 4.10.199? the grant of regutar ay scale waewithdrawn without affording an apportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The question as to Whether the reguiar pay scate granted eariier can he withdrawn without affording an opportunity of hearing to the employees whe have erajayeci i'he said faciiEty on the basis of decision taken by the empioyer and riot on the basis of any mi$representati0ns of the petitianer is no longer res integra. In San: Kumar and others vs. State of Chhatt§$gam aw ‘ athet‘s this Court Gbserved that feducticn of pay scale wi‘iheut affording an opportunity of hearing is punitive and is visited with civii consequences. Against fhe order passed in Sent Kumar (supra), the iate preferred a SLP © No. 171 22/2006 before rhe Apex Court and the same has been dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated $.1G2OOG, after condoning the delay. This case is squareiy covered \ by the judgment of this Court in Sent Kumar (supra). As far as the objection of the State. counsei about the maintainabiitty of the petition on account of delay and taohes ts concerned, there is no statutory limitation in tiiihg the writ petition, however, it there is inordinate and unexpiained iaohes and deiay where under third party interest has been created, the petitions are not entertained as the petitioner had siept over his right for a tong penod. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is aiiowed and the order impugned is hereby set aside. The petitioner is entitled to regular pay scaie from the date on which it was withdrawn by the order impugned tiii its restoration. l Sd/— Pritinker Biwaker Judge