HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2410 of2007 Petitioners 1. 2. 4. 5. Jeet Ram. S/o Bhadru Rain, a^ed 46 years, Workiag as Cook, R/o Begta, Tehsil & Distt. Jashpiir (C.G.) Penneshwar Ram Chouhaa S/o Ratacharan, aged 47 years, Workiag as Chowkidar, R/o Baasbahar Tehsil - Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Ainarlal Ram S/o Aghauu Ram, aged 45 years, Working as Chowkidar, R/o Naktununda, Tehsil-Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Budh Sai S/o Patn-am Sai, Aged 34 years, Workuig as Watennan, R/o Kharpani, Tehsil-B^icha, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Ram Pyarc Ram. S/o Boga Ram Aged 36 years, Working as Peon, R/o Soiina, Pafkoxia, Tehsil-B^icha, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. ¥. State of CUiattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Tribai. Welfare, D.K.S. BIiawaa, Mantealaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. CoUector, Aadim Jati Kafyan Branch, Jashpiir, Tehsfl & Distt. J^hpur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioncr, Aadivasi - Vflsas Tribal, Jashpur.(C.G.) The Then Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Comiaissioner, Aadivasi Vikas Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Sia^e Beach: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. A^iiltotri. Shri Rahul Jha, Advocate for the Petitioneis. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Pauel Lawyer for fhe respondeuts. (Passed on this 19th day ofApril, 2007) By fhis petition, the petitioners have chaBenged fhe validily of the order dated 4.10.1997 (Annexure P/4) passed by fhe Additioiial CoUector, Raigarh, whereiinder fhe grant of regular pay scales to fhe petitioners were wifhdrawn aad the petitioners we»e paid thereafter daily wages as per CoUector s rate. The iadisputabte facts in nutsheU, are tbat itdtially tfae petitioner No. 1 was engayed on daily wages on the post of Cook vide order dated 2.2.89, fhe petitioner No. 2 and 3 were engaged on daityw^es on the post of Chowkidar vide order dated 27.7.91, the petitioner No. 4 was eng^ed on da3y wages on the post of Waterman vide order dated 1.7.92 aad the petitioner No. 5 was engaged on dafly w^es on fhe post of Cook vide order dated 2.2.89 aad thereafter, ffae petitioner no. 1 was granted reguiar pay scale vide order dated 5.2.92, fhe petitioaer No. 2 was graated regular pay scale vide order dated 2.8.94, fhe petitioner No. 3 was granted regular pay scalc vidc ordcr dated 1.8.94, fhe petitioner No. 4 was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 1.7.95 and the petitioner No. 5 was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 28.9.92. Leamed couasel appearing for the petitioners would contend that once a rigtit of a particular pay scale has been granted to the ¥- petitioners ia accordance with law, the same cauaot be wifhdrawn, wifhout affordiag an opporhinily of hearmg. The petitioners have acqiured the r^ht to the fixed laonfhly pay scale as their services were regularized. Thus, the impugned order is bad and deserves to be quashed. Leamed counsel for the petitioners heavily relied on a judgment aad order dated 18th Januaiy, 2006 passed by this Court ia Writ Pctition 9- ^ No. 2125/2002 (Sant Kumar 8s others Vs. State of CUiatti^arh & others), whereia fhis Coiirt wlulc considering fhe identical issue of reduciag fhe rcgular pay scale granted carlier, held tfaat thc ordcr rcducmg the pay scale of aa employee behiad fheir back, without fonowiag aay procedure kaown to law is punitive and visits with crvil consequence. The saine cannot be passed wifhout giving concemed exnployee, aa oppoitvmiiy ofhearing. 5. Learaed counsel for the petitioner further submits that fhe respondents/State of Chtiattisgarh preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civifl No. 17122/2006 (State of Chhattisgarh & otbers Vs. Saat KitDiar & others) before the Hon'ble Supreine Court, chaUengmg the ordcr dated 18. l.2006 (supra), passcd by fhis Court and the same has been dismissed by fhe Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 9.10.2006 after condoniag fhe delay. 6. Leamed couusel appearing for the parties joiatly submit that this case is squarely covered by the judgment aad order dated 18.1.2006 passed in the case of Sant Kumar & others (supra). Thus, fhe impugned order dated 4.10. 1997 (Axuaexure P/4), is bad ia ]aw, being punitive in nature aad passed without affordiag an opportmuly of hearing to the concemed eniployees tpctitioncrs) for putting forward their cases. 7. Accordiagly fhe order dated 4.10.1997 (Aanexure P/4) is qiiashed. The petitioners are entrded to regular pay scales finin the date the same have been withdrawn by fhe impugned order. No order as to costs. Thakur Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotti Judge