HQH CGURT SF G%HA?Ti$G§RH: BELA$1§EJR Wrii $E§éi§9n§s§ EQO. 21’3“? cf 2%$? 1} Umeshwar Ram Yadav, S10. ;3amu Ram Y day, Aged 3Q years, wwkéng as Xi‘aiaiei’man, We. Jas‘hpur, Tahs§i Jashwr, Disi. Jashgur; CG Emmi Ram Niraia. S10. Eeenu Ram hJ ~./._ Chowkia‘iar, Niraia, agea‘ rfo. 34 Aiori, was 7ahsii wcii’ir‘ar §/?a:1c>ra¢, ac Disi. Jashwr, CG 3) Nandiai Dadsena, Sub. Heiram Dadseae‘ aged 32 vears. wwking as Waterman, Rm. Pathagae'm Tahsé! ?a’zhaigaon, EHsE. 5ashgmr: bu. ‘\f1 4‘: Hayiya§a Ba 3.1a Sudhram aggea’ 53 yemg, WOI'king as Cook We. Pathaigaon, Tami; Pathaigaen, mat. Jashaur, CG. Su§er$han Séngh, Safe. Qam Pram}? Smgia, aged 37 years, working as Waterman P‘r’o. Thuthiama, Tabs?! — Aara, §5st€. $ashwr, CG. Vemug 3) $tate of Chhaiiésga;h, :hrougéa éhe Eezirezary, Semrzment cf Tyke; Weié‘ f , BKS. 5%aawan, Maniraiaya, R‘aipur, CG. €ei§ec§oa Aadim Jaii Kay/an wanm, Jashw , Tahsié & Qist. .iashpuf (The Eben Ragam} CG. Assisiam Cemmissianeg Aadiva$§ — \g’u a.§r\&a e- Tif;1b!“ m, Jzz$¥§yu¥ 'a ‘vuu (a: ’T c A +1'vws uxbn RaEgarh), CG. 4) Commissbnen Aea‘ivasi Vikas, Raipw,CG. GI v, ¥¥espxbndemts N) ~’.uu {Wi‘ii Petiiioa under Artécie 226 0f {he Cmsiétuison of mdia) SSE: ‘EQn’bie wk, JusiiceSaz§s§a K. fag Pmsem: 3m he $iaie. Ku. Sunita Jam, Pane? Lawyer 'foy i3§2 Kismiy’e, aaunsg flax“ th I; ' , r BV this Qetition, ihe netitioners have chaiiengeci the vaiidity of fhe 0i’der dated 440-185;??7 (Annexure PM} pa$$eé by the Additionai Coiiector, Raigayh, whereunder the grant of reguim pay scaies to the pet§iioners were withdrawn and the petitioners wefe paizi iéwreaftea’ daily wages as gar Coilector’s rate. 2) The indisputabie facts; in nuisheii, are that initia§iy me getiiioner No.1 was engaged on daiiy wagee on the pos‘z of Waterman vide order caied 18-7- 89. the oet‘riioner No.2 was engaged on daiiy wages on the oos‘i of Chowkidar, vide order dafeoi 4—3-90, the petmoner No.3 was engaged on daily wages on the poet of Waterman vide order dated 2G-2—89, the petiiioraer no.4 was engageo on daily wages on the post of Cook vide order dated 19-7—89 and the petitioner no.5 wae engaged on daily wages on ihe post of waterman vide order dated 21 —’iO—§2 and thereafter: the petitioner No.1 wae grahied regular oay scale vide order dared 1§-T-92, the petitioner No.2 was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 1—3-93. the petitioner No3 was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 15-11—93 the petitioner No.4 was granted regularly pay soaie vide order dated ’i-3—§3 and the petitioner No.5 was granted reguiar pay scale vide ordero‘ated 21—10-95. 3. Learned ooLinsei apoearing for'the petitioners wouid contend that once a right of a particular pay scale has been granted to the oetitioners in accordance with iaw, the same cannot be withdrawn, without affording an oooortunity of hearing. The petitioners have acquired the right to the fixed monthty pay scale as their services were regutarized. Thus, the impugned order is bad and deserves to be quashed, 4, Learned counsel for the petitioners heavily relied on a judgment and order dared 18‘“ January 2006 maqqpw by this Com in Writ Petition No.21 2512032 (Basant Kumar & othere Ve. State of Chhattiegarh & others), where this Court while considering the identioai issoe of reducing. the regular 14 '. gay scaie granted eariier; heid that the arder fcliowing any grocedure knewn to iaws is ptinitive and visits w§th civi} consequences. The same cannot be pa5$ed without affording an appartuniiy of hearing to the concerned employee. 5. Learned counsel for the petrtioners further submits that the respondentslSiate of CG preferred a Specral Leave Petition (Ch/it) Not 171 22/2006 (State of C‘nhattiegarh & others Vs. Sent Kumar & others) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, chaitenging the order dated 184-2066 (supra), passed by this Ceurt and the same has been dismissed by the Hon’bte Supreme Court vide order dated 9-1 0-2606 ‘t’ter condoning the deiay. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointiy submit that this case is squareiy ccvered by the Judgment and order dated 18-12006 passed in the case or’ $an‘r Kumar & others {supra} Thus, the impugned order dated 4-10- ”i997 (Annexure Pf ”,r, is bad in iaw, being punitive in nature and passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned empioyees (petitioners) for putting forward their oases. 74 Accordingiy, the order dated 4-10—1 997 (Annexure PM) is quashed. The petitieners are entitled to regular pay scales from the date the same have been withdrawn by the impugned order. No order as to costs. i 83/- Raju Satish K. Agnihotri Judge i