HIGH COUf?T OP CHHATriSGARHATBILASPUR Writ Petitfon (S) No, 2414 of2007 Petitioners 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ¥- Versus Rcspondeuts 1. 2. 3. 4. Santosh Kuiuar Chouhan S/o Shri Myram Chouhan, Aged about 37 years, Working as Peon at Oovt. Middle School, Chhatamuada, Pusoure, R/o Be^>ali, Tahsil 8s Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Johit Raca Patel, S/o Bhiilau Ram Patel, Aged about 42 years, woridng as Peon at Govfc H%h School Kirodimal N^ar, R/o Chaple, Tahsil Kharsia, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) Raj Kumar Chouhan S/o Bal Singh Chozihan, Aged about 50 years, workiag as Peon, R/o Jharabdih, Tahsfl & Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) Navia Deo Patel, S/o Mool Chand Patel, Aged about 35 years, workiag as Watermaa at Govt. High School, Jateer Nagar, R/o Jatca Tahsil & Dist. Raigarh (C,G.) Deen Dayal Patel, S/o Jait Ram Patel, Aged 45 years, Workmg aa Peon at Boys H^her Secondaiy School, Dharamjaigarh, R/o Peluia, Tahsil Tainnar, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through fhe Sccrctary, School Bducation Department, D.K.S. Bbawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Director, Public Instruction Department, Raipur (C.G.) CoUector, Raigarh, Disfc Raigarh (C.G.) District Education Officer, Raigarh, Distt. Ra^arh (C.G.) ^ WJRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONOTITUTIQN OF INDIA Siagte Bench: Hou'ble Mr. Justice Satlsh K. AgaihotTi. Shri Rahiil Jha, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. QRDER (Passed on fhis 19th day ofApril, 2007) 1. By this petition, fhe petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 4.10.1997 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Additional CoUector, Rsdyarb, whereuader fhe graat of regular pay scales to the petitioners were withdrawn and the petitioners were paid thereaftjer daily wages as per CoUector's rate. 2. The indisputable facts in nutsheU, are fhat mitiaUy the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 were engaged on daily wages on the post of Peon vide order dated 12.7.91, the petitioner No. 4 was engaged on daUy wages on the post ofWaterman vide order dated 12.7.91 aad fhe petitioner No. 5 was engaged on daity wages on fhe post of Pcon vide order dated 24.12.91 aad fhereafter, fhe petitioner No. 1 was graated regular psy scale vide order dated 24.7.95, fhe petttioner No. 2 was graated regular pay scale vide order dated 24.7.94, fhe petitioner No. 3 was gianted regular pay scale vide order dated 22.7.94, thc pctitioner No. 4 was graated regular pay scalc vidc order dated 21.11.94 and fhe *- petitioner No. 5 was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 31.12.94. 3. Learaed counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend tbat once a right of a particular pay scale has been graated to fhe petitioners in accordance witli law, fhe same carmot be withdrawn, withQut affording aa opportuiuty of hearing. The petitioners have acquired fhe r^ht to the fixed inonthly pay scale as their services were regularized. Thus, the impugned order is bad and deserves tb be^ quashed. 5. Leanied couasel for fhe petitioners heavily relied on a judgment and order dated 18th Jaauaiy, 2006 p^sed by this Court in Writ Petitioii No. 2125/2002 (Saat Kumar & others Vs. State of Clihattisjpirh & others), whereia ttus Court while considering fhe identical issue of reduciag the regular pay scale graated earlier, held that the order reduciag ffae pay scalc of aa employee behind their back, without foUowing any procediire known to law is punitive aad visits wiffa civfl consequence. The same cannot be passed without giviag coacemed employee, an opportunity ofhearing. Leacned cozuasel for fhe petitioner further submits that fhe respondents/State of Chliattisgarh preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civfl) No. 17122/2006 (State of Chhattisgarh & ofhcrs Vs. Sant Kiunar & ofhers) before the Hon'ble Supreine Court, chaBengnag tfae order dated 18.1.2006 (supra), passed by ttus Court and fhe same has been disiaissed by the Hon'blc Supreine Court vide order dated 9.10.2006 after condoniag tfae delay. 6. Learaed couasel appeariug for the parties jointly subiait that this case is squarely covered by fhe judgment aad order dated 18,1.2006 passed in fhe case of Sant Kumar & otfaers (supr^, Thus, fhe impugned order dated 4.10.1997 (Annexure P/4), is bad ia law, being »- punitive iu nature and passed wifhout aEfording aa opportuaity of heariuag to the concemed employees (petitioners) for putting forward thcir cases. 7. Accordingly the order dated 4.10.1997 (Aanexure P/4) is quashed. The petitioners are entided to reguiar pay scales fiiom fhe date fhe same have been wifhdrawn by the impugaed order. No order as to costs. _-.---——- Thakur Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge