HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (Sl No. 2413 of2007 Petitioners 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Jai Siagh Ram S/o Loya Raia, Aged 34 years, Worldng as Farash (Peon), R/o Aara, Tehsil & Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Narendra Kumar Sahu S/o T.R. Sahu, Aged 43 years, Workiug as Watermaa, R/o Ncar Gourishaakar Maadir Newganj, Tehsil-Ra^arh, Distt Ra^arh (C.G.) Deendayal Ram S/o Late Mirku Ram, Aged 38 years, Working as Chowkidar, R/o Badarkona, Tehsil 7 Distt. Jashpiu- (C.G.) Dashrafh Ram S/o Tenenguram, Aged 35 years, Workin^ as Watenaan, R/o Paiku, Tehsfl & Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Kisnu Rain Bhagat S/o Bhaju Ram Bhagat, Aged 32 yeare, Working as Sweeper, R/o Ranibagieha, Tehsfl & Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Versus Respoadents 1. '¥'-• State of Chhattisgarh, Through fhe Secretaiy, Departmeiit of Tribal WeITare, D.K.S. Bfaawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Clitiattisgarh) 2. Collector, Aadim Jati Kafyan Branch, Jashpur, Tehsfl & Distfc Jashpur (C.G.) The Then Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Assistant Coinmissioner, Aadivasi Vikas Tribal, Jashpur.(C.G.) 4. Commissioxier, Aadwasi Vifeas Raipur (C.O.) WRH' PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION QFJNDJA Sia^le Bench: HonT^le Mr. Justice Satish K. ^nUiotri. Shri Rahiil Jha, Advocate for tfae Petrdoners. Sbri Ajay Dwivedi, Paael Lawyer for fhe respondents. y .t-.: 1,. Q_RDE^R (Passed on this 19dl day ofApril, 2007) By tbis petition, the petitioners have chaHenged the vaUdily of fhe order dated 4.10.1997 (Aimexure P/4) passed by the Additional Collector, Raigarh, whereunder the graat of rcgular pay scales to the petitioners were withdrawn and the petitioneis were paid thereater daily wages as per CoUector's rate. The iadisputable facts ia nutsheU, are that uutiaUy the petitioner No. 1 was eagaged on daily wages on fhe post of Farash vide order dated 27.9.91, the petitioner No. 2 was engaged on daily wages on the post of Waterman vide oider dated 10.7.89, the petitioner No. 3 was engaged on dafly wages on fhe post of Chowlddar vide order dated 27.9.91, the petitioner No. 4 was emgayed on dafly wages on the post ofWaterman vide order dated 27.9.91 and the petitioner No. 5 was engaged on daily wayss on fhe post of Sweeper vide order dated 9.1.91 and fhereafter, the petitioner No. 1 was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 1.9.94, the petitioner No. 2 was grauted regular pay scale vide order dated 9.7.92, the petitioner No. 3 was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 1.9.94, the petitioner No. 4 was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 1.9.94 and the petitioner No, 5 was graated regular pay scale vide order dated 1.9.94. Leargpd coimsel appeanng for ttie petitionera would contend that once a ri^ht of a particular pay scate has been granted to fhe petitioners in accordaace with law, fhe saiue cauuot be withdrawn, without afFoxdiag aa opportunity of hcarmg. The petitioners have acqirired the right to the fbeed monthly pay scale as their semces were regularized. Thus, fhe impugned order is bad and deserves to be quashed. ? 7 4. Leamed counsel for the petitionens heavUy relied ou a judgment aad order dated 18th Januaiy, 2006 passed by fhjs Court ia Writ Petition No. 2125/2002 (Sant Kumar & others Vs. StaO.e ot CUtatUsgarh SB others), wherein ttds Court whfle considertD^ the identical issue of reduciag the regular pay scale granted earUer, held that the order reduciag the pay scale of aa einployee behiud fheir back, wifhout foUowuig any procedure known to law is punitive and visits with civil consequence. The same caniiot be passed wifhout giviag concemed employee, aa opportuiiity ofhearing. 5. Learaed counsel &r the petitioner further subinits fbat the respoudents/State of Chhatdsgarh preferrcd a Special Leave Pctition (Civil) No. 17122/2006 (State of Chhattisgarh & others Vs. Sant Kuruar & others) before the Hon'bte Supreine Court, chaUengmg the order dated 18.1.2006 (supra), passed by this Court and fhe same has been dismtesed by fhe Hon'ble Supreme Coiut vide order dated 9.10.2006 afltEr condoniag the delay, 6. Lcaraed counsd appeadng for the parties joiatly subiait that fhis case is squarely covcred by the judgiaent and order dated 18.1.2006 passed in fhe case of Sant Kumar & others (supra). Thus, the impugncd ordcr dated 4.10.1997 (Annexure P/4), is bad ia law, beiag puniti.ve in nature and passed without affordiag au opportunily of hearing to fhe concerued eiaployees (petitioners) for puttmg forward fheir cases. 7. Accordiagly the order dated 4.10.1997 (Aanexure P/4) is quashed. The petitioners are entitkd to regular pay scales froin the date the same have been wifhdrawn toy the ioipug£aed order. No order as to costs. Satish KAgnihotn Judge Thakur ^