Femisnei‘s @ 2%?(EH SQIJRT GF CHHQ??§$G.§RH: EELASFUR Writ @etiimn fgE N0. 2‘?3§§ a? 2§$7 ‘3) Budh Bev isidaf, S/e. Kunia Ram, wed w years Wcrk‘mg as Geek, Q10. Jaswpur, TaWsiI -— Jasmuf, Dist. Jashpm, CG/ 2‘;- Lgi Sai gam Sic. Late Cmmn Ram, aged 48 was, wwking as Cask, Rio. Bamifaii, ’i"ahsii — Disf. Jashpur, CG. 3) CWhaira’noha’: Yadav 8w Asham a Yat‘ax Ag d32\'e.grs wermr‘g a5 Cram/mama x10 datwaacw Ta§15i§ ?aiha§gdon. ma gaSmuf‘ CGA ' 4E Raghuria’zh Ram. $lc. Govind¢m ug d 4O vears werkmg as Watefmm Qw aaem ‘§‘a’nsii (Firm aagbcnax . waaapur, CG 5) Baiw‘ti Ram Bhagat, S10. Late Bhamuram Bhagai, Agaa‘ 44 years, workmg as Seen Ric. Taiéciand‘ Tami; — Bagicha, amt. Jashpur, {3-3 Vezsas {Writ Peii€§on under Aiiic§e 2255 of ihe Cens‘iiiution of §ndia§ $3: Han’bie M31 Jusiéce $ai§s§n K. Agaih‘cfri Pyesent Shr Harssn Kw‘twa murwi‘cx h e€§tianer$ K¢Sqmta Jam. wane amlerfoa 1e Satai'e. m a 1) State 0*” Chha‘a‘zisgam, Ehmugh ihe ¢¢s:e%azw,, De§ar$mem o? ‘Mba? ‘JVeh , DKS. 'Ehawan, Mantmiaya. Raiaur, SG. ' Caxec‘iasi, Aaaiim Ja§ Kaiyan Eramh, Ja‘shw; Tars? 84rmst. Jasmmr {The ixwcu Ra}§ayk\ Cg 3) Ass;s mi Lorqm saimer Audwa3; — Ja viz? {115“ tkeg R 4} Corrm55mne: Aadivasi Vikas, § GRAL Q§EE imam v w.“ an "#3! . May m ”Wu, 'mn‘n By this petition, the peiitioners have chaiiemged the vai§d§fy o?” i‘ne order dated 4-10-19Q7 (Annexure PM) gsassed hy the Additionai Coiiectat, Raigam, whereunder the gran? of reguiar pay scaies to the pet§tioners were withdrawn and ’ihe petEciOhei's were eaid themafie? daily wages as per Co§ieciar’s raie. 2) The indisputabfe fac‘cs; in mufsheii, are mat initiaHy the petmoner N041 was engaged 0n daiiy wages on the post of Coek vide order dated 4-84 9937 €he petitioner No.2 was engaged on eaih/ wages on the poet of Geek: vide rder dated 4-6-1 992, the pemioner No.3 was engaged on daiiy wagee on ihe post of Chowkidar vide order dazed 11—11-1§93., the peiitioner n04 was engaged on deity wages on the post of Waterman vide order dared 27-9—1 991 and the petitioner n05 was engaged on dairy wages on the post of Cook vide order dated 10-7—1 989 and thereafter} the petiiEoner No1 was gran‘ed reg-war pay oaie vide order dared 4—8—96, the petitioner No.2 was granted regular pay soa’ie vide order dated 5-11‘95, the peririoner No3 was granted reguiar pay soaie Vide order dated 19-11—96, the petitioner i 0,4 was granted reguiariy pay scaie vide order dated 1-9-1994 and the petitioner No.5 was granted regoiar pay scale vide order dated 12-7—1§92.' 3r Learned counsel appearing for tne petrtionere wourd contend that once a right of a parttouiar pay soaie has been granted to the petitioners in accordance with law, the same cannot be withdrawn without affording an opportunity of hearmg. The petittoners have acquired the right to the nxed monthty pay scale as their services were reguiartzed. thus, the impugned order is bad and deserves to be quashed. 4r Learned oounsei tor the petitioners heaviiy reiied on a gudgment and order dated tat“ January, 2006 passed by the Court rn Writ Petition No.2125/2002 (Basant Kumar & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others); @ where this Court whne considering the identical issue of reducing the regular pay scaie granted eariier, held that the order foliowing any procedure known to iaws is puhiiive and visits with civii consequences. The same cannot be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned empioyee. 5. Learned counsei for the peiiiioners further submits that the respondents/State of CG preferred a Special Leave Peiirion (Civi!) No. 171 22/2006 (State or Chha‘rtiegarh & orhere Vs. Sam Kumar & others) before the Hon‘bie Supreme Couri, challenging the order dated 18—1-2066 (supra), passed by this Court and the same has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 9—1 O—2QO6 after condoning ihe delay. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the pariies iointiy submi‘r that This case is squareiy covered by the Judgment and order dated 18-1-°006 passed in the case of San: Kumar & others (supra). Thus, the impugned order dated 4-10— 1997 (Annexure PIA) is bad in. law, being punitive in nature and passed xA/iinout affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employees (petitioners) for putting forward their cases 7i Accordingly: the order dated 4-1 0-1997 (Annexure PM) is duas'ned. The petitioners are entitled to regular pay scales from the date the same have been withdrawn by the impugned order, No order as to costs. Sd/- l Satish K.Agnihotri l ‘ l Judge' -