SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

2026:CGHC:13083 Digitally signed by SYED NAFR ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2270 of 2026

1. Dinesh Pratap Singh S/o Late Shri R.D. Singh Aged About 64 Years R/o Patliputra Colony, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Directorate Of Health Services Through Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Medical And Health Officer (CMHO) District Gaurella-

Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh

4. Divisional Joint Director Department Of Accounts & Pension, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG)

... Respondents For Petitioner : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer.

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order on Board

18/3/2026

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 21.4.2025, Annexure P-1, passed by respondent No.3 whereby last drawn pay of petitioner was unilaterally reduced from Rs.74,300/- to Rs.64,000/-, in effect pension of petitioner has been reduced from Rs.37,150/- to Rs.32,000/- per month.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was initially appointed as Computor/Sanganak, was promoted as Head Clerk vide order dated 24.3.2022 in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200-2800/- and he stood retired from the same post on 29.2.2024 after attaining age of superannuation. At the time of his retirement, petitioner was getting pay of Rs.74,300/- and accordingly, his pension was fixed at Rs.37,150/- per month. However, all of a sudden, vide order impugned, last drawn pay of petitioner was unilaterally reduced to Rs.64,000/- and as a result, his pension was also reduced to Rs.32,000/- per month. He submits that any order which has effect of an employee suffering civil consequence should not be passed without putting him/her to notice and given opportunity of hearing. However, the impugned order reducing last pay of petitioner from Rs.72,000/- to Rs.64.000/- is passed without giving notice or opportunity of hearing, therefore, the same is unsustainable being in violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bhagwan Shukla vs Union of India, reported in AIR 1994 SC 2480.

3. Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent State would submit that pursuance to direction issued by this Court on the last date of hearing, he as sought instruction in the matter and as per oral instruction received by him, the petitioner was not given notice or opportunity of hearing before passing the order impugned, Annexure P-1.

4. In view of above submission made by learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent State on instruction, in the opinion of this Court, further reply is not required and the matter can be considered and decided based on oral instructions received by learned Panel Lawyer.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.

6. In case of Bhagwan Shukla (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the similar issue of reduction in pay without notice and held as under:-

"3…...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 came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There, has, thus, been a fragrant 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 t