AT^^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH: BiLASPUR 'iONI 1) Ratiya Ram son of Late Shri Budhan Ram, aged about 55 years, working as Pharash, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Sanna, Tah and BSock Bagicha, Dist. Jashpur, CG. (appointed vide order datad11-7..1994). 2) Sahdev Ram son of Late Shri Jhuian Ram, aged about 40 years, working as Agriculturai Peon, Government Hlgher Secondsry Schooi, Sanna, Tah and Block Sagicha, Distt. Jashpur, CG. (appointed vlde order datsd 6-4- 1989). 3) Ramjan Ram aged about 45 years, son of Late Matiya ram working as Chow/kidar, Government High Secondary Schooi, Sanna, Tahsi! and Biock Bagieha, Distt. Jashpur, CG. (appointed vide order dated 5- i-19i f \^ ^/<^ S . 4) Naaendra Ram. aaed about 35 years, son of late Shri Kadio Ram working as Rasoyeeya (cook), Pandit Motiia! Nehru Boys Hostel Pandrapath Tah and Block Bagicha, Dist. Jashpur (CG) (appointed vide order dated 27-7- 1991). 5) Prabai Sai son of Shri Teio Ram aged about 40 years, working as Rasoyeeya (cook), Pandit Motilai Nehru Boys Hostel, Tah and Biock iagicha, Dist. Jashpur, CG. (appointed vide order dated 27-7- 2001). 1) The State of Chhattisgam, through Secretary, Department of School Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Shawan, Raipur, CG. 2) The Coiiector (Adim Jati Kalyan Vibhag), Dist. Rsigarh). sshpur (the then '?" 2- 3) The Assistant Commissioner, Aadivasl Vikas Triba! Jashpur (the then Raigarh). 4) The Commisstoner, Aadivasi Vikas Raipur, CG. CWrit Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) SB: Hon'bie Rir. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Shri Amit Ku.Tiaf Shflrm£.counsei for ths potitionsr. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate forths Stats. (Passed on 11th Juiy, 2007) By this petition, the petitioners have chalienged the vaiidity of the order dated 4.10.1997 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Additiona! Collector, Raigarh, whersunder the grant of reguiar pay scales to the petitioners were withdrawn and the petitioners were paid thereafter daiiy wages as per Collector's rate. 2) The indisputabie facts in nutsheli, are that initially the petitioner no.1 was engaged on daily wages on the post of Pharash vide order dated 11 -7-1 994, the petitioner No.2 was engaged on daiiy v/ages on the post of Agrlculturai Peon, vide order dated 6-4-1 S89, the petitioner No.3 was engaged on the post of Chowkidar vide order dated 5-9-1989, the petitioner No.4 v/as engaged on the posi of Rasoyeeya (Cook) vide order dated 27-7-1991 and the petitioner No.5 was enaaaed on the oost of Rasoyeeva (cook) vide order dated 27-7-1991 and thereafter the petitioners were granted regular pay scate vide order dated 15-12-1992. The arant of reguiar pay scaie was withdrawn bv the impugned order dated 4-10-1997 (Annexure P/4). tar 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that once a right of a partlcutar pay scaie has been granted to the petitioners in accordance with iaw, the same cannot be withdrawn, without affording an opportunity of hearing. Ths petitioners have acquired the right to the fixed monthiy pay scale^ r n \ -3. raju as their services were reguiarized. Thus, the impugned order is bad and deserves to be auashed. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners heavily relied on a judgment and order dated 18th January, 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2125/2002 (Sant Kumar & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others), wherein this Court whiie considering ihe identicai issue of reducing the regular pay scale granted eariier, heid that the order reducing the pay scaie of an empioyee behind their back, without foiiowlng any procedure known to iaw is punitive and visits with civil consequences. The same cannot be passed wiihout giving concerned empioyee, an opportunity of hearing. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondents/State preferred a Speciai Leave Petition (Civil) No.17122/2006 (State of Chhattisgarh & others Vs. Sant Kumar & others) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, chaiienging the order dated 18-1-2006 (supra), passed by this Court and the same has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide ora'er dated S-10-2006 after condonation ofdeiay. 6) Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointiy submit that this case is squareiy covered by the judgment and order dated 18-1-2006 passed In the case of Sant Kumar & others(supra). Thus, the impugned order dated 4-10-1997 (Annexure P/4) is bad in iaw, being punitive In nature and passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employees (petitloners) for putting forward their cases. 7) Accordingly, the order dated 4-10-1997 (Annexure P/4) is quashed. The petitioners are entitied to reguiar pay scaies from the date, the same have been withdrawn by the impugned order. No orderastocosts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge