HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2411 of 2007 Petitioners 1. Jati Raca Khuate S/o Dhola Raia Khuate, Aged 50 years, Working as Chowkidar, R/o Kofba, Tehsil- Pafhalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) 2. Basa&t Sai S/o Kola Sai, Aged 40 years, Working as Watennan, R/o Baasbahar, Tehsil-Bagicha, Distt Jashur (C.G.) 3. Phool Sai S/o Tarau Ram, Agcd 41 years, Worldng as Cook R/o Dunuarmuda Tehsil-Baagbahar, Distt, Jashpur (C.G.) 4. Jag Mohan Ram S/o Jedhu Ram Aged 33 years, Worldag as Peon R/o Chulapani, Tehsil-Kunkuri, Distt Jashpur (C.G.) 5. Nehru Ram Yadav S/o Bajar Ram Aged 38 years, Worldng as Peon, R/o Kotba, Tehsil-Pafhalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. ^- State of Chhatdsgarh, Through the Secretai5r, Department of Tribal Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Maatralaya, Raipur (Cbliattisgarh) 2. Coltector, Aadim Jati. Kalyaa Braach, Jashpur, Tehsil & Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) fhe then Distt. Raigarh 3. Assistant Commissioner, Aadivasi - Vikas Trtbal, Jashpur.(C.G.) 4. Coamiissioner, Aadivasi Vikas Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OPTHE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA Sin^e Bench; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agaihotrl. Shri Rahnl Jha, Advocate for tfae Petitioneis. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for fhe respondents. •-Sii—mn-SKPSS-saia e' QR_DJE^ (Passed on this 19(h day ofApril, 2007) By tbis petition, the petitioners have chaUenged fhe validily of th.e order dated 4.10.1997 (Annexure P/4) passed by fhe Additional Collector, Raigarh, whereunder fhe grant of regular pay scales to the petitioners were withdrawn and the pctitioners were paid fhereafter daily wages as per CoUector's rate. The iadisputable facts ia nutsheU, are fhat initially the petitioner No. 1 was eng^ed on dafly wages on fhe post of Chowkidar wide order dated 28.12.89, fUe petitioner No. 2 was engaged on daUy wages on fhe post of Watermaa vide order dated 22.2.89, fhe petitioner No. 3 was engaged on daily w^es on fhe post of Cook vide order dated 10.7.91, fbe petitioner No. 4 was engaged on daUy wages on fbe post of Peon vide order dated 28.10.91 aad fhe petitiouer no. 5 was engaged on daily wages on the post of Peoa vide order dated 30.7.90 and fhereafter, the pctitioner No, 1 was granted regular pay scalc vide order dated 22.12.92, the petitioner No. 2 was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 22.2.92, the petitioner No. 3 was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 1.8.94, fhe petitioner No. 4 was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 28.10.94 and fhe petitioner Ko. 5 was graated regular pay scale vide order dated 31.7.93. Leamed counsel appeariag for fhe petitioners woiild coatend that once a right of a particular pay scale has bcen grauted to fhe petitioners in accordauce wifh law, fhe same cauaot be wifhdrawn, without afifordiug aa opportuuily of hearing. The petitiouers have acquired the right to fhe fixed laonfhly pay scale as their semces were regiilarized. Thus, the impugued order is bad aud deserves to be quashed. | SS.I Bffl ¥- ~E> 4. Learaed counsel for the petitioners heavily reUed on a judginent aad order dated 18th Jauuary, 2006 passed by this Court ia Writ Petition No. 2125/2002 (Sant Knmar & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others), whereia fhis Court while considering fhe identical issue of reduciug the regular pay scale graated earlier, held fhat the order reduciag fhe pay scalc of aa employee behind tbear back, without foUowing aay procedure known to law is piuutive and visits with civU consequence. The same cannot be passed wifhout giving concemed eiaployee, an opportunily ofhearmg. 5. Lcarued counsel for the petitioner further subnuts that fhe rcspondents/State of Chliattisgarh preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civi^ No. 17122/2006 (State of Chliatdsgarh & others Vs. Sant Kumar & ofhers) before fhe Hon'ble Supreine Coiirt, chaUenging fhe order dated 18.1.2006 (supra), passed by fhis Court and the same has been dismissed by fhe Hon'bte Supremc Court vide order dated 9.10.2006 after condonin^; fhe delay. 6. Learaed couusel appeariag for the parties jointly subnut that this case is sqiiarely covered by fhe judgment and order dated 18.1.2006 passed ia the case of Sant Kumar & others (supr^. Thus, the inipugacd order dated 4.10. 1997 (Amiexure P/4), is bad ta law, being punitive in natiire and passed wifhout aflfordiag aa opportunily of hearing to fhe concemed employees (petitiouers) for putting forward their cases. 7. Accordingly the order dated 4.10.1997 (Annexure P/4) is quashed. The petitioners are entitled to regular pay scales irom the date the same have been wifhdrawn t>y the imptigned order. No order as to costs. Thakur Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotti Judge