HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARK AT BILASPUR (S) No. 24G9of; v¥Ai.L i~ C: LltJLi^JLX 2409 of 2007 Petiti1'UU.C.i.S F\t:o 1. Rauilal Ram., S/o Budhuram, Aged 39 years, Workiag as Chowkidar, R/o Gomharia, TehsU & Distt Jashpur ,'C.G.). 2. Siut. Ninaala Bai, C/o Late Mader Raui, Aged 40 years, Working as Watermau, R/o MadhuvantoU, Tehsfl & Distf. Jash.pur(C.G,) Versus pondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through. ftie Secretary, Departmeat of Tribal Welfare, Mautralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh.). CoUector, Aadun Jati. Kalyau BTanch, •Jastipur, Tehsit & Distt. Jashpur (C.G.). The Then Raigarh. (C.G.) Assistant Cominissioner, Aadivasi - VikasTribal, Jashpur.(C.G.) Cominissioner, Aadivasi Vikas Raipur o (C.G.1 "» njDIT Dp;TT/-»W IIIUnRD ARTlr'I R 'TTA npTHR r'nMSTiT'iTinw rsp 'Nni. v¥E\i 1 F l^i i iv-fi^ Ui'1ii^i^r\ i'il\ 1 l.v^'l-/i;/ ^I^AJ v^£- x ii.*-/ ^^'V^ltt.-T i. i.i^^'iivj'l^ v^ii' Sia^e Beneli: HonTilc Mr. Justicc Satish K. Agaiiiotri. Stai Kahvsl Jha, Advotate. for UtC 1'etyio.nsis, Shri Ajay Dwiyedi, Panel Lawyer for the reapondeuts. ORDER ( Passeri on this 19th day ofApril 2007) By this petition, fhe petitioners have chaBenged fhe validity of tbe order dated 4.10.1997 (Amiexure P/4) passed by tbe /Idditioaal CoUector, Raigsrh, whereuiider fhe graat of regular pay scales to the petitioners were withdiawa aud the petitioners were paid thereafter daify wages as per Colfector^s rate. -———... 2. -4. c; The iadisputable facts ui nutshell, are fhat iaitiaUy tli&-~^:titioners were engaged oa daUy wa®eson various on the post of Chowkidar aad Waterman., respectively vide order dated 21.10.1992 (Anaexure P/l) aad 31.3.1990 (Anuexu.re P/2] aad thereafter graated regular pay scates vide OKler dated 19.9. 1997 (Annexure P/3). Leamed coiiusel appeariug for the petitioners would contend that once a right of a particular pay scale has been granted to fhe peti.tioD.ers iu accordance with law, ftie saiae cannot be withdrawn., wittiout affoiding an oppoituaity of hearing. TIie petition.ers have acquired the nglit to fhe fixed moatlity pay scale aa ttseir aervices were regularized. Thus the iuipugned circular as welt as the inipugaed order are bad and deseive to be quashed. aad ied counsel for the petitionera heavily referred to a judgm.ent order dated 18f:11 iJamiary, 2006 passed hy fhis Coiirt in Writ. Petition M/', Q^^C/QnriQ /&-sye4- S?^«"-fi^ .fe" A4-l»/s"<a t7^ S4-<2*'-s A^ ?<»felB<z**-5ff£?i'=«-?a^e F'iu. ^il^i^f .£,V\J.£,^(&<!Uifi,i> SXUiuiiUt CB vfcWK?aa> irst. &ua&.ie yA ^•iitUBfcUfii^u iu others], whcrcisi this Court whilc considcring thc idcatical issuc of reducing fh.e regular pay scale granted earlier, held fhat ttie order reducins tiie pay scale of an employee behind their back, without following any prcK;edure known to law is piuiitive and visita with civil consequeuce. The saine caauot be passed without giviiig coacenied employee, an opportuiiity ofhearing. Lear&ed counsel for the petitioner further submits tfaat fhe reapondeuts/State of Chliattisgarh prefen-ed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17122/%)06 (State of Chhattisgarh & ottiers Vs. Sant Kuiuar & others] before the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court, challeugiug the orier dated 18.1.2006 (supraj, passed by tliis Court aad fhe saiae has been dismissed by ftie Hoa'bte Supreme Court vide order dated_ 9.10.2006 afler condoaing tiie delay. | 6. In view of the foregoiug, I am of the consKlered opuuon that the impugned order dated 4.10. 1997 (Aaneseure P/4), is bad iu law, being puniti.ve in nature, without aGfordiug sa opportunity of bearing to the concerued employees (petitioaerej for putting forffard their cases. 7. AccoFding]y £he order dated 4.10.1997 (Auuexure P/4) is quashed. The petitioners arc eutifled to reguiar pay scates foai the date tlie saiae have been withdrawn by fhe uupugned oider. No order as te costs. Satish K.AgDihofn hakui- Judge "••u. \