1} 9emianer$ 4} 1 “m. Sm’t‘ Parvati bai, Wio. Bnma Ram, aged R70 "9 :Eadm years {Gamharwa} wwk rg a5 "ti’agsii {‘9 k Jashpm, Dist. Jashpug, CGJ Purusm‘fzam Ram isioj Permeshwar Dam aged 33 fags wcrkiag ag COOK. Rm; Baghkfna, Tahsii ~ §aghicha, Dist. Jashgur, CG. Ram’eet Ram S/o. Bho‘ia Ram, Aged‘ 36 yams, wwkmg as Cook Ric. Jampam, Tahsii Duiduia, W512. Jashpur, CG. Sivmarwai Ram Sia' $uk’nai’1 Ram aged 3gvears wwkiw as Ceok. as’c. Chmgrib‘ahar (giia’g‘mara‘). Tahsii; Baghicha, Dist. Jashgmr, CG. §aiesh aged 3§ Ram, yeagys, sio werggng? Rajenc‘ira as Cask, Ram, Rio. Aafa, Tahsii‘ Dist Jas’npun CG. Vefs us State of C’nhai‘iisgaz‘h, through $1.9 Secretary, Department cf Taibai 3K5. §espzm<iems 1) RIGé—i C£§U§T 9F SHHATT§$GARH: §§L§$PU§Q Writ Pe‘méan (5’; M12736 a? 2%? We§§are, Shawaa, Maniraiaya, Raipur, SG. Ce§iecton Aadém éais Ka§yan Bra'ich, Jasha'ur, Tahsii & Disi. Jashpur (‘a‘he $‘nen Raégam} 3G. 3‘} 4) ASSistam vakés “meat Comm§ssiwer Jasapuyk’rm Aadhxasi mg Raigarh‘), CG. Commissioner, adivasi Vikas, Raipu", CG. (Writ ?eiiticn undes’ Afiicie 226 of the Censtiiu‘tion 9* Mdia) $3 Hcaibie if. Jusijce $aii§h K. Agmh‘atri DI M~ “.1 KERN. $€§é§ @aggegi Gr. Tim Svaav. ”imm“. SM Hamh Kuntiya, coumei for the pei§tiomers Ku. Sur1§"za Jam, Pane] Lawyer fw we $taie. a mv.., @ A : km I? Ey i‘ms petitmn, the pe’i‘i?ionei‘s have caa§ienged the vaiédity of the os'iie? daied 4-1G-19§? (Annexure ‘?i4} passed by ihe Acidiikmai Co§ieciw, Raigarh, whei'eunda the gram 6f regimr pay sca%és to i‘ne pe‘iitianers were withcirawn and the paitionei's were paie hereafter de§§y wages as per Coiiecter’s rate. -2,- 2) The indisputabie facte, in nutshell; are ihai initiaiiy the peiiiicner Nej was engaged on daiiy wages on the past of Cook vide order dated 27—74 9g} , ihe petitioner No.2 wae engaged on dairy wages on the post cf Cook, vide arder dated 18—3-1991, the perrtioner N06 was engaged 0n dairy wages on the post or” Cook vio’e order dated ’x5—7’4-9Q1} the p oner no.4 was engaged on daiiy wages on the post of Cook vio‘e order Gaiee 16-7—1991 and the petirioner n05 was engaged on dai!y wagee on the post a? Cook vide order dared 4—6—1992 and thereafter, the peri‘tioner No.1 was granted reguiar pay eoa:e vio'e order dated 1—8-94, rhe petitioner No2 was granied regurar pay scare vide order dated 31-5-1993 the petitioner No3 was granted reguiar pay scale vide order dated 17—7-94, the petitioner N04 was granted reguiariy pay scate vide order dated 17-7-94 and the petitioner No.5 was granted reguiar pay soate Vide order dated 64 ‘r-§or ,. 3. Learned counsei appearing forthe petitionere would contend tat once a right of a particular pay scale nae been granted to the petitioners in accordance with taw, the same cannot be withdrawnj without attordtng an opportunity of hearing The petitioners have acquired the right to the fix d monthty pay scale ae their sen/loee were reguiarized‘ Thus, the impugned order is bad and deeerves to be quashed, 4‘ Learned counsel for the petitioners heaviEy relted on a judgment and order dated 18*“ January, 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.21 25/2002 (Basant Kumar & others Ve. State of Chhattlegarh 8: others), where this Court white considering the identical issue of reducing the regular pay scale granted earlier, held that the order foltowing any procedure known to er § -3" @ iaws is punitive and viSits with civii conSequences. The same cannot be passed wiiheut affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned empéoyee. ,_. cc Learned counsei for the petitioners furiher submits that the respondents/State of CG preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civii) No. 171 22/2DG8 (State of Chhattisgarh & others Vs. Sant Kumar & Others) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, c‘naiienging the order dated 18-1—2G06 (supra); passed by this Court and the same has been dismissed by the Hon’bie Supreme Court vide order dated 9—1 0-2006 after condoning the deiay, 6. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointiy submit that this case is squareiy covered by the Judgment and order dated 18-1—2606 passed in are case of Sant Kumar & others (supra). Thus, the impugned order dated 4-16- 19g7 (Annexure PM), is bad in law, being punitive in nature and passed without affording an opportunity ot' hearing to the concerned employees (petitioners) for putting forward their cases. T. Accordingly, the order dated 4-1 0-1997 (Annexure PM) is quashed. The petitioners are entitied to regular pay scales from the date the same have been withdrawn by the impugned order, No order as to costs, i Sd/_ i r Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Raju i