f<&4^- Li'n/ } IN THE mGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WMT PETITION N0t1 OF 2006 PETITIONER: 1. 1y A.^y/ \^<i^/ ^y /^^y ..••'',-^'x^'' ^/^/ ^' .,.'. ryu' fo •t' •^.-^ fr'ii3.cr ^-^ Pujeri Lal, S/o Kalap Ram, Aged about 38 years, Presently posted and working as Jalvahak, SC/ST Boys Hostel, Dhurkot, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) Laxmi Kumar Patel, S/o Mohan Singh Patel, Aged about 39 years, Presently posted and working as Jalvahak, SC/ST Boys Hostel, Dabra, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) Balram, S/o- Lakhan, Aged about 40 years, Presently posted and working as Chowkidar, Adivasi Ashram, Dhaurabhata, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) Jeevan Lal, S/o Ghasia Ram, Aged about 46 years, Presently posted and working as" Rasoiya (Cook), Adivasi Ashram, Dhaurabhata, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) G. v- Versus n1-&- RESPONDENTS : ^^^^hi 2- State ofChhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, D.K.S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Commissioner, Department of Tribal Welfare, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) f* Collector (Tribal Welfare Branch) Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) •-j:^n^ii^^i^^^ ^4. District Organizer, Department of Tribal Welfare, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) WRrTPETniQNUNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONST1TUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. 4266 of 2006 Petitioners Pujeri Lal and others Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & ofters SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Mr. B.D. Guru, counse! forthe petitionsr. Mr. V.V.S. Murthy, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, Panel lawyerforthe respondents/State. ORDER (Passed on this 27th day of February, 2007) 1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 3.8.2002 (P/1), passed by the District Organizer, Department of Tribal Welfare, District Janjgir-Champa (Respondent No. 4), whereunder the grant of regular scale to the petitioners was withdrawn and the petitioners were paid thereafter colllector's rate. 2. The indisputable facts in nutshel! are that the petitioners were engaged on daily wagers on collector's rate. The petitioner No. 1 (Pujari Lal) was initially appointed on the post of Chowkidar vide order dated 13.1.94. The petitioner No. 2 (Laxmi Kumar Pate!) was initially appointed vide order dated 27.12.93 on the post of Waterman-cum-Chowkidar. The petitioner No. 3 (Balram) was initially appointed on the post of l-1elper on 25.3.92 and the petitioner No. 4 (Jeevan Lal) was iniUally appointed on the post of Cook videorder dated 27.1 .90 (P/2), respectively. 3. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.7.2000 on completion of three years of service the petitioner No. 1 was treated as member of the Workcharged and Contingency Temporary Service w.e.f. 22.7.2000 and he was granted reguiar pay scale of Rs. 2550-55- 2650-3200/-. The petitioner No. 2 was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 2550-55-2660-3200/- w.e.f 28.2.2000. The petitioner No. 3 was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 2550-55-2660-3200/- w.e.f. 1.1.96 and the petitioner No. 4 was granted regular pay scate of Rs. 2550-55-2660-3200/- w.e.f. 15.7.96. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that accordingly the petitioners were continued in service and were getting salary on the basis of reguiar pay scale granted to them. But all of a sudden, vide order dated 3.8.2002, the grant of regular pay scale was withdrawn. 5. Shri B.D. Guru, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that once a right of a particular pay scate has been granted to the petitioners in accordance with law, the same cannot be withdrawn after a period of five-sb< yeare, without affording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioners have acquired the right to the fixed monthly pay scale and they became Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees. Thus, the impugned order is bad and deserves to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners heavily referred to a judgement and order dated 18 January, 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2125/2002 (Sant Kumar & others vs. -r State of Chhattisgarh & others), wherein this Court while considering the identical issue of reducing the regular pay scale granted eariier, held that the order reducing the pay scale of an employee behind their back, without follofting any procedure known to law in' punitive and visits with civi! consequence. The ik .—se'-.&S^"^ 'ipsAiMa Aefy •j|ft| LRIM eteis/siuspuodssj sifi jo^ Buueadde ) lejsuao sieooApv A}ndeQ peuesi 'AqiiniAl •s 'A 'A !JMS "Ae|ep <«! / ei|} 6uiuopuoo jsye 900Z'01.'6 psisp JSpJO epiA ijnoo siuejdns 8|q,uo|-| ei|i Aq pessiiusjp ussq seq sujes 84} pue ynoo siqi Aq pessed '(aidris) 900Z"(.'81. PSIEP JspJO ei|t DuiBueiiByo 'vnoQ eujsjdn3 s|q,uo|-| sqi sjojsq (sjayio lg jeuin» iue3 •SA sjeq»oy 4Je6s!uei443 p sie»s)QOOZIZZUi •°N (|!A!O) uos!}9d ^AB^^ leioeds e psjjs.jsjd qjeBsineyqo ^o 8}eis/stU9puQds3j eqi leyi siiuiqns jeyynj jeuoiiiied 84} lo^ |ssunoo psujesni -9 ..•jeneui QI# ui Buuesi) e uji4 BuiAiB pue soiiou 0} peujsouoa sq^ Buiund psssed eq p|noqs seousnbssuoo |IAJO Buusyns eeAo|diue ue ya peye e^l sey yoiym jspjo yons ou ieq} siuejjeM uoipe ui Ae|d JIBJ -pjeey Buieq inoyiiM sso| |eioueuy s6ni| jejuns 01 apeuj ueaq sei| tue||8dde eq} pue eoitsnf |ejnieu p ssidiouud eij} jp uo[tB|oiX tuejBey e useq 'snqi 'SBI| sjai|i • B| 0} UMOU>| ejnpsoojd Aue BUI O||OJ tnoiiiw sjoeq sii| puiqsq speiu eq ot suieo jepjo sifl pue lustupedsp ©41 Aq psonpsj sem Aed siq ejojeq saitou uo }nd USAS tou sew SH -Aed oiseq swj jo uoipnpej ei|} isuieBe esneo Moys 0} Aiiunyoddo ou peiuejB ussq pei| 34 inq ssauenbesuoo IIAIO LBJM paysiA usaq A|snoiAqo sey iue||3dde aqi,, -:jepun se p|eq SBL| ynoo siusjdns 8|q,uo|-| ei)} L(|UOIU jed -/(.9|. •sy o} 4}uoiu jed -/QSI. 'sy uo^ ssAoiduis ei|tio Aed p uoipnpsj sijt Buuepisuoo e|iqm 'uiajeqM '{^gt QOS 9 fresO} sjeqio 'g Btpu| ^o uoiun -SA B|5|n4s ueMBeyg ui ynoo sui8Jdn9 e|q,uo|-j p uoisioep e uo p8i|sj SBI| ynoo siqt '(ejdns) sseo s,jeiun» lueg ui IBLJI siiuiqns osje jsuoiBsd 341 jq( lesunoo p3u.iB^^ •L •Buueeij pi Aiiunvoddo ue '3sAo|diU9 psujsouoo 6UIAIB inoqim pessed sq IOUUBO SUUBS Bablu leamed Panel Lawyer, do not dispute the fact. Thus, the order has become final. 9. In view of the foregoing, 1 am of the considered opinion of that the impugned order dated3.8.2TO2 (P/1) is bad in taw, being punitive in nature, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employees (petitioners) for putUng forward their cases. Accordingly, the order dated 3.8.2002 (P/1) is quashed. The petitioners are entitled to regular pay scales from the date, the same have been withdrawn bythe impugned order. 11. Mr. V.V.S. Murty, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State submits that -keeping in view the quantum of the difference of the amount, payable to the petitioners, some instalments be granted. The contention of learned counsel appears to be just and reasonable. The difference of the amount shall be paid to the petitioners quarteriy in four instelmente. No order as to coste. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge /