Sukhdev Malakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.

Sukhdev Malakar vs State of Chhattisgarh and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chhattisgarh Decided Jan 08, 2008

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/495986

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/495986
Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Judge: Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
Decided On: Jan 08, 2008
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - Thus, the impugned order is bad and deserves to be quashed. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 18-1-2006 passed by the case of Sant Kumar and others (supra). Thus, the impugned order dated 4-10-2007 (Annexure P-l) is bad i...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sukhdev Malakar

Respondent

State of Chhattisgarh and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: (State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. v. Sant Kumar and Ors.
Reported In: 2008(2)MPHT20(CG)

Excerpt

- - thus, the impugned order is bad and deserves to be quashed. learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 18-1-2006 passed by the case of sant kumar and others (supra). thus, the impugned order dated 4-10-2007 (annexure p-l) is bad in law, being punitive in nature and passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee (petitioner) for putting forward his case......(annexure p-l) passed by the collector (tribal welfare branch), raigarh, whereunder the grant of regular pay scale to the petitioner was withdrawn and the petitioner was paid thereafter daily wages as per collector's rate.2. the indisputable facts in nutshell are that initially the petitioner was engaged on daily wages on the post of cook vide order dated 6-9-1991 and thereafter, the petitioner was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 7-9-1995.3. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that once a right of a particular pay scale has been granted to the petitioner in accordance with law, the same cannot be withdrawn, without affording an opportunity of hearing. the petitioner has acquired the right to the fixed monthly pay scale as his service was regularized. thus, the impugned order is bad and deserves to be quashed.4. learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on a judgment and order dated 18th january, 2006 passed by this court in writ petition no. 2125/2002 (sant kumar and ors. v. state of chhattisgarh and ors.), wherein this court while considering the identical issue of reducing the regular pay scale of an employee behind their back, without following any procedure known to law is punitive and visits with civil consequence. the same cannot be passed without giving concerned employee, an opportunity of hearing.5. learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents/state of chhattisgarh preferred a special leave petition (civil) no. 17122/2006 (state of chhattisgarh and ors. v. sant kumar and ors.) before the hon'ble supreme court, challenging the order dated 18-1-2006 (supra), passed by this court and the same has been dismissed by the hon'ble supreme court vide order dated 9-10-2006 after condoning the delay.learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 18-1-2006 passed by the case of sant kumar and others (supra). thus,.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 4-10-1997 (Annexure P-l) passed by the Collector (Tribal Welfare Branch), Raigarh, whereunder the grant of regular pay scale to the petitioner was withdrawn and the petitioner was paid thereafter daily wages as per Collector's rate.

2. The indisputable facts in nutshell are that initially the petitioner was engaged on daily wages on the post of Cook vide order dated 6-9-1991 and thereafter, the petitioner was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 7-9-1995.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that once a right of a particular pay scale has been granted to the petitioner in accordance with law, the same cannot be withdrawn, without affording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner has acquired the right to the fixed monthly pay scale as his service was regularized. Thus, the impugned order is bad and deserves to be quashed.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on a judgment and order dated 18th January, 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2125/2002 (Sant Kumar and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.), wherein this Court while considering the identical issue of reducing the regular pay scale of an employee behind their back, without following any procedure known to law is punitive and visits with civil consequence. The same cannot be passed without giving concerned employee, an opportunity of hearing.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents/State of Chhattisgarh preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17122/2006 (State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. v. Sant Kumar and Ors.) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, challenging the order dated 18-1-2006 (supra), passed by this Court and the same has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 9-10-2006 after condoning the delay.

Learned Counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 18-1-2006 passed by the case of Sant Kumar and others (supra). Thus, the impugned order dated 4-10-2007 (Annexure P-l) is bad in law, being punitive in nature and passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee (petitioner) for putting forward his case.

Accordingly, the order dated 4-10-1997 (Annexure P-l) is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale from the date the same have been withdrawn by the impugned order. No order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Chhattisgarh · 2008 Same Parties Sukhdev Malakar vs State of Chhattisgarh and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

Service