.<•!•• iSB % ^n 6^ HISH^OURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS)No. 6218 of 2007 Petitioner Versus Rsspondents Smt Asha Yadav (Now Sharma), aged about 33 years, w/o Ramesh Sharma, Occup. Chowkidar, in the dspartment of Tribal, Kanya Ashram Chhai, Post: Chhat, District: Raigarh (C.G.) The State of Chhattisgarh, Through She Secretary Department of Tribal Weffiare, Mantra'sy, D.K.S. BuHding, Raipur, Tehsii and Districi Raipur (C.G.). The Commissioner, Triba! Oepartment, Tehsii and District Raigarh (C.G.) The Asstetant Commissioner, Triba! Devetopment Raigarh, District: Raigarh (C.G.) Ths Coltector, Triba! Welfare Branch, District: Raigarh (C.G.). WRIT PET1TION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTtQN .^' SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Rupesh Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate Generat for the respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on this 29th day of Februarjf, 2008) 1. By this petition the petitioner has chaitenged the validif/ of the order dated 4.10.1997 (Annoajre P/1) passed by the Collector, Raigarh, whereunder the grant of regular pay scale to the petitioner v/as withdra-ivn and the petitioner v/as paid thereafter dai!y wages as per Coilector's rate. The indi'sputable facts in nutshelt are that iniSialiy the petjtioner was engaged on daily wages on the post of Chovirtsidar and subsequently he 2. ranted negutar pay scaie vide order dated 28.2.1996 (Annexun was gr P/3). Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that once a right of a particuiar pay scale has been granted to the petitioner sn accordance wth !aw, the same cannot be withdrawn, without affording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner has acquired 8ie right to the 3. fixed monthiy pay scale as his services were regularized. Thus, the impugned order is bad and desen/es to be quashed. • Learned counsel for the petitioner heaviiy relied on a judgment and order dated 18 January, 2006 passed by this Courtin Writ Petition No. 2125/2002 (Sant Kumar & others Vs. State of ChhatSisgarh & others), e •A'herein this Court while considering the identica! issue of rsducing the regular pay scate granted earlier, held that the order reducing the pay scale of an employee behind his back, without following any procedure known to taw, is punitive and visite wi civi! consequence. The same cannot be passed vflthout gjving concemed employee, an opportunity of hearing. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents/State of Chhaffisgarti preferred a Speciai Leave Petition (Civii) No. 17122/2006 (State of Chhattisgarh & others Vs. Sant Kumar & others) before She Hon'bte Supreme Court, chalienging e ordsr dated 18.1.2006 (supra), passed by this Court and ttie same has been dismissed by the Hon'bie Supreme Court vids order dated 9.10.2006 aftsr condoning the deiay. 5. Learned counse! appearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 18.1.2006 passed by this Court in Sant Kumar & othsre (supra) and the order dated 19 April, 2007 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2410 of 2007 (Jeet Ram & others Vs. State of Chhattisgahr & others). Thus, the impugned order is bad in iaw being punitive in nature and passed 'iirithout affording sn opportunity of hearing to the concemed emptoyee (petitioner) for putting fofward his case. S. Accordtngiy the impugned order dated 4.10.1997 is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to regular pay scate from the date. the safne has been withdrawn by the impugned order, subject to verification of facts. The respondents are at iiberfy to take any steps, in accordance with lav/. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. A$ Judge Thakur