HIGH SOURT GF CHHATTRSGARH AT BQLASPUR W. P. (S) No. 5701 of 2007 Petmoner Baleshwar Sat aged about 42 years. S/O Baisakhu Ram, Occup. Rasoiya, in the Department of Tribal, Boys Hostel. Leiunga, Post; Leiunga, District: Raigarh (CL-7.), at present R10 Vilrage: Nariyar Dand, Diatrict: Raigarh (C.G.) Versus Respcndents SB: Hon'ble Shri satish K, Agnihotri, J. 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Department of Tribai Welfare, Mantralay, D.K.S. BuiMing, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (C43,). 2. The Commissiener, Tribai Department, Tehsii and District Raigarh (CG) 3. The Assistant Commissioner. Tribal Deveiapment Raigarh. District: Raigarh (C.G.) 4. The Coilector. Triba! Welfare Branch. District: Raigarh (C.G.). WRIT PETiTiON UNDER ARTICLE 223 OF THE CONSTITUTION 1. By this petition the petitioner has chaiienged the vaiidity of the order dated 4.10.1997 (Annexure Pii) passed by the Coilector. Raigarh, whereunder the grant of reguiar pay scaie to the petitioner was withdrawn and the petitioner was paid thereafter daily wages as per Collector’s rate. 2. The indisputabie facts in nutshell are that initiaiiy the petitioner was engaged on daiiy wages on the post of Rasoiya and subsequentty he was granted reguiar pay scale vide order‘dated 8.7.1996 (Annexure P/2). Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner wouid contend that once a right of a particoiar pay soaie has been granted to the petitioner in accordance with law, the same cannot be withdrawn, without affording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner has acquired the right t0 the ORAL ORDER Shri Rupesh Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vihay Harit, Deputy Advocate Genera! for the respondents. (Passed on this 29‘“ day or February, 2008) @ fixed mommy pay scale as his services were regular§zecL Thus, the impugned order is bad and deserves to be quashed. . Learned counsel tor the petitioner heavily relied on a judgment and order dated 13’” Jarluary, 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2125/2002 (Sant Kumar & others Vs. State of Chhaitisgam & others). wherein this Couft whiie considering the identicai issue of reducihg the reguiar pay scale granted earlier, held that the order reducing the pay scale of an emplayee behind his back. without following any procedure known to law. is punitive and visits with civil consequenee. The same cannot be passed without giving cancerned employee. an opportunity of hearing. . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents/State of Chhattisgarh preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nor 171 2212006 (State of Chhattisgarh & others Vs. Sant Kumar & others) before the Hon'bie Supreme Court, challenging the order dated 18.1 20% (sopra), passed by this Court and the same has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 9.10.2006 after condoning the delay. . Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is sqdarely covered by the iudgment and order dated 18.1 .2006 passed by this Court in Sant Kumar & others (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 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee (petitioner) for putting forward his case. . Accordingly the impugned order dated 4.10.1997 is quashed. The petitioner is entitied to regular pay scale from the date, the same has been withdrawn by the impugned order, subject to veritication of facts. The respondents are at iiberty to take any steps, in accordance with iaw. No order asto costs. Thakur Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri i‘ Judge