(WPS No.486/2020) 2026:CGHC:10859 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 486 of 2020 D.R. Shinde, S/o late S.R. Shinde, Aged about 62 years, Retired as Field Assistant, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation, R/o Ward No.20, Anand Nagar, Near Uslapur Railway Crossing, Mangla, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Co- operative Societies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation, 6th Floor, Tower “C”, Commercial Complex, C.B.D., Sector 21, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation, 6th Floor, Tower “C”, Commercial Complex, C.B.D., Sector 21, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. The Chief Account Officer, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation, 6th Floor, Tower “C”, Commercial Complex, C.B.D., Sector 21, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5. District Marketing Officer, MARKFED, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Amit Buxy, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondents No.2 to 5 : Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.03.03 15:11:53 +0530 (WPS No.486/2020) 02/03/2026 1. Mr. Vikas Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that rejection of pay-scale of the petitioner has been made without giving opportunity of hearing to him, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India and others1 to buttress his submission. 2. Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State counsel and Mr. Harshal Chouhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 5, would oppose the writ petition and support the impugned order. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 4. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Shukla (supra) in which their Lordships have clearly held that by withdrawal/reduction of the pay- scale, employee suffers civil consequences and it cannot be done without following the principles of natural justice, and it has been observed in paragraph 3 as under: - “3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner's basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs. 190/- p.m. is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs. 181/- p.m. from Rs. 190/- p.m. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 18-12-1970. The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order 1 AIR 1994 SC 2480 (WPS No.486/2020) came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25-7-1991, which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17-9-1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25-7-1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant from Rs. 190/- to Rs. 181/- w.e.f. 18- 12-1970.” 5. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 2-8-2019 (Annexure P-1) is set aside and the respondents are directed to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner. 6. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Soma