f-z -.1- •^^- < Single Bench INTHEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.rL^^^OF 2009 PETITIONERS : ^^) .^'" ^v^ ^^ ^ RESPONDENTS ^l Mahendra Kumar Jhangde, S/o Shri Vishwanath Singh Jhangde, aged about 40 years, Government Primary School, Amlibavana, Tahsil & District Raigarh (CG). Gadaram Yadav, S/o Makar Ram Yadav, aged about 56 years, O/o Block Education Officer, District Education Raigarh, Tahsil & District Raigarh (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur, (CG). 2. Director, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). ^l 3. ' Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). 4. District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA [•MW ^^&s& ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl N0.2645 OF 2009 PETITIONERS Mahendra Kumar Jhangde and another Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and Others (Writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: - Shri Shashank Thakur, counsel for the petitioners. Shri A. V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 09th day of November, 2009) By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the orders impygned herein (Annexure-P/1 & P/2) passed by the District Education Officer, Raigarh, whereunder the grant of regular pay scale to the petitioners were withdrawn and thereafter the petitioners were paid daily wages as per Collector's rate. (2) The indisputable facte, in nutshell, foradjudication of the case, are that initiatly the petitioner No. 1 was engaged on daily wages basis by the Department ofSchool Education vide order dated 12-07-1991 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner No.2 was engaged on daily wages basis vide order dated 24-10-1985. The petitioner No. 1 was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 03-04-1998 (Anneuxre-P/4) and the petitioner No. 2 was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 24-11-1990. However, all of a sudden without affordingan opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the regular payscale granted to them was withdrawn and in place of that the payments were made on the basis of daily wages i.e. as per the Collector's rate. Thus, this petition. (3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that once a right of a particular pay scale has been granted to the petitioners in accordance with law, the same cannot be withdrawn, without affording an ^ I opportunity of hearing. The petitioners have acquired the right to the fixed monthly pay scale, as their services were regularized. Thus, the impugned orders are bad and deserve to be quashed. 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 while considering the identical issue of reducing the regular pay scale granted eariier, held that the order reducing the pay scale of an employee behind their back, without following any procedure known to law is punitive and visits with civil consequence. The same cannot be passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondents/State of Chhattisgarh preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.17122/2006 (State of Chhattisgarh & others Vs. Sant Kumar & others) before the Supreme Court, challenging the order dated 18.1.2006 (supra), passed by this Court and the same has been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 9.10.2006, after condoning the delay. (4) Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the judgment and order passed by this Court in Sant Kumar (supra). Thus, the impugned orders i.e. Annexure - P/1 and P/2,are bad in law, being punitive in nature and passed without affording an opportunjty of hearing to the concerned employees (petitioners) for putting forward their cases. (5) Accordingly, the impugned orders Annexure - P/1 & P/2 are quashed. The petitioners are entitled to regular pay scales from the date; the same have been withdrawn by the jmpugned orders. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.AgnihoW Judge