HIGH COUR1‘ OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PE’l‘iTiGN (S) N0. 3466 01’2008 PETITIONER 2 Ku. Saxda Sadangi, aged about 38 years, D/o Lats Chakradhar Sadangi, working as Waterman, Govt Girls Middle School, Chakradhar Nagar, resident of Raigarh, Tehsil Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary: Department of Schooi Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan. Raipm' (C.G.) 2. Director, Public Instructions Department, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Coiieotor, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 4. District Education onicer, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 1’ETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Mm Satish K. Agnihotri, J. RESPONDENTS Present: Shri Harish Khuntiya, Advocate for the petitioner.- Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 29m day of July, 2008), With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. I.A. No. 1, this is an application for taking document on record. The application is ordered as prayed for. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Gangnan (Chowkidar) as contingency paid employee on 16.12.1991 (Annexure P/ l). Aiter completion of three years of service. he was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 24.2.1994 (Annexure PXZ). Thereaiter, the benefit of regular pay scale was withdrawn vide order dated 04.10.1997 (Annexure PB), admittedly, without show—cause—notice to the petitioner. 4. The regular pay scale, which was withdrawn on 04. 10.1997 (Annexure P/3), was subsequently granted vide order dated 06.11.2004 (Annexure PM). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to grant of arrears ofregular pay scale with effect from 04.10.1997 to 06.11.2004, as the same was illegally withdrawn. 5. Shri Khuntiya further submits that the issue involved in this petition is asto whether pay scale of the petitioner can be reduced behind his back, without . .. . I l t l t l l @ WRIT 1 -2. aifo’rding opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case. Learned counsel further submits that the identical issue came up before this Court in W.P. No. 2125/2002 (Sant Kumar and others v. State of Chhaiiisgarh and others). This Court held that reduction of pay scale without affording an opportunity ofhearing is punitive and Visits with civil consequences. 6. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits that the question of law involved in this petition is identical to that of in the matter of Sant Kumar and others (supra). Thus, this matter is squarely covered by decision ofthis Court passed in the matter of Sant Kumar and others (supra). 7. Shri Khuntiya further submits that the respondent/State of Chhattisgarh preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. l7122/2006 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others v. Sant Kumar & Others) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, challenging the order dated 18.01.2006 (supra), passed by this Court and the same hasbeen dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09‘102006, after condoning the delay. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 18.01.2006 passed in the case of Sent Kumar and others (supra). Thus, the impugied order dated 04.10.1997 (Annexure P/3) is bad in law, being punitive in nature and passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee (petitionerlfor putting forward their case, subject to verification of facts. 9. The petition is accordingly allowed. lmpugied order dated 04.10.1997 (Annexure P/3) is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale tram the date the same has been withdrawn by the impugned order till regular pay scale was restored. No order asto costs. - Sd/- l risatish K. Agnihetr‘ ‘ Judge