Shri v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Shri Julious Khalko aged about 51 years, working as Subedar (M)/Head Clerk work at office of Superintendent of Police, District Jashpur (C.G.) :3) Santosh Kumar Yadav, S/o. Shri Parasu Ram Yadav, aged about 46 years, working as Sub Inspector (M)/ Upper Division Clerkt office Superintendent Police, Disti-ict Jashpur(C.G.) :4) Osant Kumar Chandra, S/o. Shri Ram Prasad Chandra aged about 44 years, worldng as Assistant Sub Inspector (M)/Lower Division Clerk work at office of Superintendent of Police, District Jashpur (C.G.) .v^ ^ c' Versus RESPONDENTS :1) State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Departinent of Home D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) :2) . Inspector General of Police (Admn) Police Head Quarter, Chhattisgarh, Rajbhavan, State Raipur (C.G.) :3) Superintendent of Police, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ~% ./"^ '"••>. PETITIQNERS Celestine Bada & Others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Vipin Punjabi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate with Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 3 day of August, 2012) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Case of the petitioners is that the pay scale of the petitioners has been revised causing pecuniary loss to the petitioners without affording an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that reduction in pay scale amounts to imposition of penalty, which cannot be done without proper enquiry and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that it is not a case of reduction of pay scate, but adjustment of pay scale, which may lead to reducticn in grant of pay. On the question of opportunity of hearing, there is not a whisper in the return and also it is not the case of the State that any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before reducing the pay scale of the petitioner, which leads to loss of salary. It is well settled principles of law that no order visiting with civil (evil) consequences be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. This Court in Roshan Prasad Sidar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others observed as under:
"13. It affording is well settled principle of law that if any order visits with civil consequences, the same is vitiated, passed without opportunity of hearing to the employee(s). (See: Shrawan Kumar Jha and. others v. State of Bihar and others , D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. & Others , Basudeo Tiwari v. Sido Kanhu University & Others , Canara Bank & Others. v. Debasis Das & Others , Vivekanand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. & Others6, Mohd.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.