PETITIONERs „ <-; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (Sl No. 3848 of2007 1. Arjun Kumar Verma, S/o Shyam sunder, Aged about 48 years, presently posted and working as Peon/ Chowkidar, Adivasi Baiak Chhatrawas, Sakti, district Janjgir . Champa (CG) 2. Lal Sai, S/o Jagatram, aged about 43 ysars, presently posted and working as Cook, Hat Kargha Kendra, Sariya, District Raigarh (CG) 3. Pradeep Kumar, S/o Shivlal Nisad, Aged about 35 years, presently posted and working as Jal Bahak, Adivasi Ba!ak Ashram, Dhaurabhanta, District Janjgir - Champa (CG) 4. Dujmati Viswakarma , W/0 Chhoturam, Aged About 37 Years, Presentiy Posted And Working As Sevika, Adivasi Baiak Ashram, Dhaurabhanta, District Janjgir - Champa (CG) 5. Chhabilai, S/0 Jagatram, Aged About 40 Years, Preseritly Posted And Working As Cook, Adi'/asi Ba'ak Chhatravas, Chandrapur, District Janjgir - Champa (CG) 6. Harihar, S/o Mahendralai, aged about 39 years, presently posted and working as Cook, Government Adivasi Ba!ak Ashram, Kawaiajhar, District Janjgir - Champa (CG) 7. Shyam Lal Yadav, S/o Deo Singh Yadav, aged about 35 years, presently posted and working as Jal Bahak, Government Adivasi Baiak Ashram, Dhaurabhanta, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) 8. Jaylal Sidar, S/o Kaiiram Sidar, aged about 50 ysars, presentiy posted and working as Cook, Governmsnt Adivasi Baiak Ashram, Dhaurabhanta, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) ^. RESPONDENTS Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Tribal Weifare, D.K.S. Building, ^4ant^aiaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2) Commissioner, Department of Tribal Welfare, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 3) Coilector CTribal Welfare Branch) Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 4) District Organizer, Department of Tribal Welfare District Janjgir- Champa (CG) (Writ Petition under Articie 226 ofthe Constitution of india) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present: Shri B.D. Guru, eounse! forthe peffiioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Go~vt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 5th day of July, 2007) (1) By this petition, the petitioners have chailenged the vaiidity of the order dated 03.08.2002 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Organizer, Department of Tribal Welfare, District Janjgir-Champa, whereunder the grant of regular pay scates to the petitioners were withdrawn and the petitionere were paid thereafter daily wages as per Collector's rate. (2) The indisputable facts in nutshe!!, are that initiaiiy the petitioner No.1 was engaged on daily wages on the post of Chowkidar vide order dated '<:' 29.01.1990, the petitioner No.2 was engaged on daily wages on the post of Cook vide order dated 17.09.1990, petitioner No.3 was engaged on daiiy wages on the post of Waterman vide order dated 31.03.1990, the petitioner No.4 was engaged on the post of Sevika vide order dated 27.10.1993, the petitioner No.5 was engagecl on the post of Cook vide order dated 07.08.1992 , the petitioner No.6 was engaged on the post of Cook vide order dated 04.01.1992, the petiiioner No.7 wss engaged on the post of Waterman vide order dated 06.01.1990 and the petitioner No.8 was engaged on the post of Cook vide order dated 29.01.1990 and thereafter, the petitioner No.1 was granted regular pay scaie vide order dated 07.06.1990, the petitioner No.2 was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 03.10.1991, the petitioner No.3 was granted reguiar pay scale vide order dated 15.07.1993, the ^ petitioner No.4 was granted regular pay scaie vide order dated 22.07.2000, the petitioner No.5 was granted regutar pay scale vide order dated 14.02.1994, the petltioner Nos.6 and 7 were granted regular pay scaie vide order dated 08.01.1993 and the petitioner No.8 was granted reguiar pay scale vide order dated 03.10.1991. (3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners wouid contend that once a right of a particular pay scale has been granted to the petitioners in accordance with iaw, the same cannot be withdrawn, without affording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioners have acquired She right to the fixed monthiy pay scale as their services-werereguiarized. Thus, the impugned order is bad and desen/es to be quashed. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioners heavily reiied on a judgment and order dated 18 January, 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2125/2002 (Sant Kumar & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others), wherein this Court whiie considering the identical issue of reducing the regular pay scaie granted eariier, heid that the order reducing the pay scale of an empioyee behind their back, without foilowing any procedure known to law is punitive and visits with civii consequence. The same cannot be passed without giving concerned empioyee, an opportunity of hearing. (5) Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondents/State of Chhattisgarh preferred a Speciai Leave Petitton (Civii) No. 17122/2006 (State of Chhattisgarh & others Vs. Sant Kumar & others) before the Hon'bie Supreme Court, chailenging the order datsd 18.01.2006 (Supra), passed by this Court vide order dated 9.10.2006 after condoning the delay. (6) Leamed counsei appearing for the partles jointly submii that this case is squareiy covered by the judgment and order dated 18.01.2006 passed in the case of Sant Kumar & others (supra). Thus, the impugned order dated 03.08.2002(Annexure P-1), is bad in taw, being punitive in nature and passed v/ithout affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned empioyees (petitioners) for putting forward their cases. -— (7) Accordingly, the order dated 03.08.2002 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. The petitioners are entitied to regular pay scaie from the date, the same have been withdrawn by the impugned order. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Karuna