5’6 / HIG}! COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIWPUR W.P.j$l N6. 4569,5230? PETITIONER Sukhdev Malakar, aged about 46 years, S/o. Mohamal Malakar, Occup. Rasoiya, in the dspariment of Tribal, Boys Hostel Koasiya, Biock Lajlunga, District Raigarh (CG) Varsus /’ RESPONDENTS 1 . The State of Chhattisgarh, Thmugh S€cretary, Tn'bal Welfars Depaxment, Mantralaya, DKS Building, Raipur, Tehsil and Dist Raipur (CG) 2. The Commissioner, Tribal Department, ’I‘ehsil‘ and District Raigarh (CG) 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Raigarh, Distiict: Raigarh (CG) 4. The Collector, Tribal Welfare Branch, Disirict Raigarh (CG) WRIT MM PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA $3: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. ihotri J.l Shri Rupesh Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the State. $RAL ORDER (Passed on this 8th day of January 2008), 1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 4.10.1997 (Annexure P] 1) passed by the Collector (Tribal Welfare Branch), Raigarh, whereunder the grant of regular pay scale to the petitioner was withdrawn and the petitioner was paid thereafter dailywages as per Collector’s rate. 2. The indisputable facts in nutshell are that initially the petitioner was engaged on daily wages on the post of Cook vide order dated 6.09.1991 and mereafter, the petitioner was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 7.09. 1995. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that once a right of a particular pay scale has been granted to the petitioner in accordance with law, the same cannot be withdrawn, without aii‘ording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner has acquired the right to the fixed monthly pay scale as his service was regularized. Thus, the impugned order is bad and deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on a judgment and order dated 18th January, 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Peu'tion No. 212512002 (Sant Kumar 8r. Others Vs. State of Chhatiisgarh and Others), wherein this Court while considering the identical issue of reducing the regular pay scale of an employee behind their back, without following any procedure known to law is pumdve and visits with civil consequence. The same cannot be passed without giving concerned employee, an opportunity of hearing. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents/State of Chhattisgarh preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17122/2006 (State of Chhattisgarh 65 Others Vs. Sant Kumar &. Others) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, challenging the order dated 18.01.2006 (supra), passed by this Court and the same has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 9. 10.2006 after condoning the delay. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 18.01.2006 passed by the case of Sant Kumar 65 Others (supra). Thus, the impugned order datea 4. 10.2007 (AnneXuJeP/ l) is bad in law, being punitive in nature and passed Without aifording an opportunity of healing to the concerned employee (peh'tioner) for putting foxward his case. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 4.10.1997 (Annexure P] 1) is quashed. The petitioner isentitled to regular pay sacle horn the date the same have been withdrawn by the impugned order. No order as to costs. Satish K. Agnihotri in Judge our; Sdl-