H£GH COURT OF CHHATTB$GARH AT BlLAsPUR W, P. {S} Mg 1662 Gf 2008 Petmane.’ Parmeshwer Prasad, aged about 4O years, s/o Sunau Ram, Occup. Rawiya, in the department of Ti'ibaL Higher Secondary Schooi, Barra, Tehsi! Kharsiya, District: Raigam (9.6.) Versus Respondents 1. The State ef Chhattisgarh, Throughthe . Secretary. Department of .Tribai Welfare, Mantralaya. D.K.S. Building, Raipur, Tehsii and District Raipur (6.6.). The Commissioner, Tribal Department, Tehsii and Distriet Raigarh (C.G.) 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribe: Devetepment Raigerh. District Raigarh (CG). 4. The Collector. Tribe! Welfare Branch. District: Raigarh (6.6.) WRIT PETtTtON UNDER ARTECLE 225 GF-THE CGNSTiTUTiGN SB: Hon'bte $hrt Satish K. Agnihetri, J. Shrt Repesh Shrivastava. dvocate for the petitioner. Shri Satistr Gupta. Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents. . With the censent of learned counsei appearing for the parties, the matter is heard tinaliy, By this petition the eetitioner has chailenged the vaiidiu of the erder l‘}t dated 4.10.9? (Annexure Pit) passed by ti e oitecter, whereunder the grant of reguiar pay scaie ta t. e petitiener was withdrawn and the petitiener was paid thereafter daily wages as per Ceiiecter’s rate. ()w 73>“. ’ .)K.M w GRAL ORDEI (Passed 0n this 17‘" day of March, 2008) The indisputabie facts in nutsheii are that initiaily the petitiener was engaged en deity wages on the nest 0f Rasoia and sabsequentty he was granted regutar pay scate vide order dated 15.11993 (Annexure P/2). Learned counsei appearing for the aetitiener wouid eontend that once a right of a particuiar pay scaie has been granted to the petiticner in accordance with law, the same cannet he withdrawn, without atterding an opportunity of hearing. The pe itiener has acquired the right to the 5n fwed mummy pay scale a3 hi$ Services were regu!arized. Thus. the impugned ower is bad and deserves io be quashed. Learned counsei for the petiticnef heavi%y reiied an a judgment and arder daied 18‘" January, 20G6 passeei by thi$ Cowt in Writ Pétition No. 2125f2e02 (Sant Kumar & ethers V3. State of Chhattisgarh & others) and m‘der datw 1§m Aprii, 2007 paeeetj Er: W.P.(S) Na. 24m of 2007 (Jeetram & cthers V3. state cf Chhatt§sgarh & cthers), wherein this Com Whiie ceneiden'ng the identica! iseue of reducéng the regu§af pay “scab granted eerh‘ef. held that the order reducing fhe pay scaie of ah employee behind his back, withaui feiiewing any procedure known to iaw, ie eunitive and visiis wiih civii ceneequence. The same cannet be paseed witheut giving eoneerneri emeieyee, an epportuniiy ef hearing. Learned couneei for the netitioner farther eubmiie {hat the respendenrsfsmte of Chhattisgarh preferred a Sneciai Leave Petition {Civir} No. 1 71 22/2006 (State of Chhaitiegerh & others Va. Sent Kumar & cthere} before the Hon’bte supreme Court, chatienging the order disrntseed dated 18.1.2006 by the (supra). Hon’bie passed supreme by this Coon Court vide and order the dated same 9.10.2006 has been after condoning the deiay. Learned counsei appearino for the parties jointly eubmit that this case is squareiy covered by the judgment and order dated 16.1 .2006 passed by thie Court in Sent Kumar & other’s (Supra) and the order dated 19‘” Apriii/ 200? oassed in W.P.(S) No. 2410 of 2007 (Jeet Ram & others Vs. State of Chhattiegahr & others). Thus. the impugned order is bad in iaw being punitive in nature and passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned empioyee (petitioner) for putting forward his case. Thakur Aocordingiy the impugned order dated 4.10.1997 (Annexure Pit) is quaehed. The petitioner is entitied to reguiar pay soate from the date. the same has been withdrawn by the impugned order, subject to verification of facts. The respondents are at iiioerty to take any steps, in accordance with iaw. No order astc costs. ,ss~r-—~7""*#"#w~’w"¥ Jf- i¥rikv_ . ‘ iv_v«if L ‘7 i7 Satish K. Sd/_ Agmhotn u m V- Judge