HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wnt Petition (S) No. 2412 of2007 Petitioners 1. 2. d 3. 4. 5. ^- Respondente Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. Teju Ram, S/o Shri Baadhu Ram Aged about 41 years, Working as Chowkidar, R/o Bartoli, Tehsfl Kuakuri Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Maloo Ram. Chouhaa, S/o Shri Konda Ram, Aged 35 years, Workiag as Waterman, R/o Pemla (Raidadh), TahsU Kunkuri Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Helorious Lakra S/o Shri Davelish Lakra, Aged 36 years, Working as Waterman, R/o Duldula, Teh. Kunkuri, Dist. Jashpur (C.G.) Vishwanath Soreng S/o Shri Pusa Soreng, Aged 42 years, Worldng as Chowlddar, R/o Jambahar, Tehsfl Kuakuri Dist. Jashpur (C.G.) Bhagwat Ram S/o Dadi Ram,Aged 50 years, Worlcin^ as Waterman. R/o Kardega Tahsil Kujikuri, Dist. J^hpur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Maatealaya, Ralpur (Chhattisgarh) CoUector, Aadim. Jati. Kalyan Braacli, Jasbpur, Tehsil 8& Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Assistant Conmussioner, Aadivasi Vikas Tribal, Jashpur.(C.G.) Commlssioner, Aadivasi Vikas Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OP THE£QNSTITUTION OF INDIA Siagle Beach; Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satlsh K. Agaihotri. Shri Raliul Jha, Advocate for the Pctitioners. Shri Ajay Dwwedi, Pauel Lawyer for fhe respondents. ¥. ORDER (Passed on this 19th day ofApril, 2007) By this pctition, the petittoners have challenged the validily of fhe order dated 4.10.1997 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Additioiial CoUector, Ra^arh, whcreiuider the grant of regular pay sGales to the petitk}ners were wifhdrawn aad fhe petitioncrs were paid thercafter daily wages as per Collector's rate. The indisputable facts ia nutsheU, are fhat initiatfy fhe petitioner No. 1 was engaged on daity wages on the post of Chowkidar vide order dated 27.5.91, the petitioner No. 2 was cngaged on daily wayes on the post of Watennan vide order dated 2.4.92, the petitioner No. 3 was engaged on da3y wages on the post of Watermaa wide order dated 13.2.92, the petitioneis No. 4 was engaged on daity wages on the post of Chowkidar vide order dated 23.1.93 aud fhe petitioner No. 5 was engaged on daily vfs^/ss on fhe post of Waterman vide order dated 23.1,93 and thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 was graated regular pay scale vMe order dated 1.6.94, the petitioner No. 2 was grauted regular pay scale vide order dated 9.11.95, the petitioner No. 3 was gcauted regular pay scale vide order dated 13.2.95, fhe petitioner No. 4 was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 25.1.96 aad fhe petitioncr No. 5 was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 25.1.96. Learaed counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend fhat once a right of a pardcular pay scale has been granted to the petitioners ia accordance with law, the saine caonot be withdrawn, without affording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioners have acqiiired the right to fhe fixed monthfy pay scale as llieir semces were reguiarized. Thus, the impugned circiriar as weB as tlie impugned order are bad and deserve to be quashed. Learaed counsel for fhe pctitioners heavify referred to a judgment and order dated 18<h Januaiy, 2006 passed by fhls Court in. Writ Petition No. 2125/2002 (Saat Kumar & others Vs. State of CMiattisgmh Ss others), wherein ftus Court while consideriag the identical issue of reducuig the regular pay scale graated earUer, held fhat ttic order reduciag the pay scale of an eiaployee behiad fheir back, wifhout foUowing any procedure known to law is punitive aad visits wifh civil consequence. The same cannot be passed without giviag conceraed eiuployee, aa opporttuiity ofbeanng. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner further submits that the respondents/Slate of Chhattfsgarh preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civi^ No. 17122/2006 (State of Chhattisgarh & others Vs. Saat Kumar & others) before fhe Hon'ble Supreme Court, challenging the order dated 18.1.2006 (supra), passed by fhis Court axid the same has been dtemissed by fhe HonTale Suprenie Court vide order dated 9.10.2006 after condosiaf the delay. In view of the foregoing, I am of fhc considered opinion that tfae ¥- impugned order dated 4.10.1997 (Aimexure P/4), is bad ia law, beiag piuutive ia nature, without affordu^ aa opportunity of heariag to thc concemed euiployees (petitioners) for putting forward fheir cases. 7. Acconimgly the order dated 4.10.1997 (Aiuiexure P/4) is quashed. The pctitioners are entitled to regular pay scafes fi-om the date thc same have been withdrawn by fhe irupugned order. No order as to costs. - 6. Thakur Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge