HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2415 of 2007 Petitioners 1. 2. 3. 5. Paras Ram Rathor S/o Shri Bhoj Ram Rathod, Aged about 45 years, Working as Peon at Govt Middle School, Behramai^, Dharanya^arh, R/o Dumarbhata, Tahsil-Kharsia, Distt Raigarh (C,G.) Kalaram Sidar, S/o Tilak Ram Sidar, Agcd about 31 years, workiug as Peon at Ctovt. High School, Kirodimal N^ar, R/o. Krishiiapur, Tahsfl & Dist, Ralgarh (C.G.) Lalit Kumar S/o Khikram., Aged about 37 years, workiag as Pcon at Govt. H^her Secoadaiy School, Kantahardi, R/o Dhangarteepa, Tahsil & Dist Raigarh (C.G.) Sivram Dewangan, S/o Late J^anaath Dewangan, Aged about 45 years, worldag as Peon at Govt H^h School, Chakradhar Nagar, R/o Boirdadhar, Tahsil & Dist Ra^arh (C.G.) Jeevaa Lal Yadav, S/o Jagmohaa Yadav, Aged 46 years, working as Watermau, R/o Basanjhar, Tahsfl Kharsia, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) Versiis Respondents l. State of Chhattisgarh, Throu^i the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bliawaa, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhatttegarh) 2. Director, PubUc Instruction Department, Raipur (C.G.) 3. CoUector, Raigarh, Dist. Ra^arh (C.G.) 4. District Education Ofi&cer, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Siaj^e Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satlsh K. Agaihotri. Shri Rahul Jha, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Pauel Lawyer for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on this 19th day ofAprfl, 2007) By this petition, the petitioners have chaUenged fhe validily of fhe ordcr dated 4.10.1997 (Amiexure P/4) passed by tfae Additional Collector, Ra^arh, whereiuider fhe grant of regular pay scales to fhe petitioners were withdrawn aad the petitioners were paid fhereafter daily wages as per Collector's late. The iadisputable facts in nutsheU, are fhat iiutially the petitioner No. 1 was engs^ed on dafly wages on the post of Peon vide order dated 21.12.91, the pctitioner No. 2 was engaged on daily -wscges ou fhe post of Peou wkle order dated 14.2.97, the petitioners No. 3 aad 4 were eng^ed on daily w^es on the post of Peon vide order dated 12.7.91 aad fhe petitioner No. 5 was engaged on daily wages on fhe post of Watennan vide order dated 12.7.91 aad thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 31.12.94, fhe petitioner No. 2 was graated regular pay scale vide order dated 20.2.97, fhe petitioner No. 3 was graated regiilar pay scale vide order dated 31.3.94, the petitiouer No. 4 was graated regular pay scale vide order dated 22.7.94 and fhe petitioner No. 5 was graated regular pay scale vide order dated 26.7.94. ^eamed counsel appeariug for the petitioners would contend that once a right of a particular pay scale has been grauted to fhe petitioners ia accordance wifh law, fhe saine caunot be withdrawn, wifhout affordiug an opportuuily of hearfug. The petitioners have acquired the right to the fixed m.onthly pay scale as their services were regularized. Thus, fhe inipugned oider is bad and deservcs to be quashed. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioners heavity relied on a judgment aad order dated 181fa Jaauaiy, 2006 passed by fhis Coiirt ia Writ Petition No. 2125/2002 (Saat Kuaaar & otbeis Vs. State ofCUtatU^arh 85 others), whereia tfais Court while consideiiag the jdentical issuc of reducing the regular pay scale granted carlier, hcld that the onier reduciug the pay scale of an eniployee betund their back, wifhout foUowiag any procediire kaown to law is pzuutive and visits wifh civfl consequence. The same cannot be passed without giving concemed employee, an opportunity ofheariag. 5. Leamed couasel for the petitioner furdier subuuts fhat fhe respondents/State of Chhattisgarh preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civi^ No. 17122/2006 (State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers Vs. Sant Kumar & others) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, chaUengiag the order dated 18.1.2006 (supr^, passed by ttus Court aad the saiae has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Coual vide ordcr dated 9.10.2006 after condoiung the delay. 6. Leanied counsel appearmg for fhe parties joinfly submit that this case is squarely covered by the judg-ment and order dated 18.1.2006 passed in fhe case of Sant Kiuaar & ofhers Vs. State of Chliattisgarh & others (supia). Thus, the impugned oider dated 4.10,1997 (Annexure P/4), is bad ia law, being puiutive in nature and p^sed wifhout affordiag aa opportunity of hearing to fhe concemed exaployees (petitioners) for puttmg forward fheir cases. 7. Accordingly tfae order dated 4,10.1997 (Aaaexure P/4) is quashed. The petitioners are entitled to regular pay scales froin the date fhe same have becn witlidrafwn by the impugncd order, No order as to costs. Thakur Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge