•^. HKi-iCGURT.GFCHHATTISSARMATKn.ASPUR W. P.fSlNo. 3383 of 2008 Petitianer Versu3 Respondents 1. Ifeshaw Profiad Dadseno, oged about 36 years, s/o 5uclheraffl, Occyp. Rasoiya, in the depdrtment of Tribal, Boys Hostet Chhql, Tehgi!: Dhramjaigartt, &istrict: Raigarh (C.&.) The Stote of Chhattisgarh, Through •itie Secrstsry, DejMrTment of Tribsl VSfelfare, Ataritr'alayu, D.K.S. Building, fiaipur, ' 'Tehsii and titetriet Raipur '2: s: 4- 'tW Cam^ Triba! t^ejiat'1'mjsnt, Tshsil and Oistrict ;i| iigarfr<€.&) Ttie.AssislantConiinissioner. Tribai ^ewlopBisnt feiigarh, DteTrict ^U^M-h^&fi.). .'T^t.:^.Sottwtwtt'"W^: Welfare BR3n<;^||>isl-FiGffifaagaFll{C^.) 5. ws^ z1idviiSi^^^^^^^^^^^ bhrunl^liigaHi^l^ ,,iftagarh:;: .''Road,. Ohrcmyaigarhi||sh| M@hi'amijaigdr+), Otet. Raigorb ^@.> , ; WRIT reTmON UN&ER ARTICtt 226 OF TT3E CQNSnTUTION SB: Hon'ble 5hri Satish K. Asnihotri. J ^- i;ilMJiL;a- r ni ^ vi!fiwwWfas Shri &iutam Khetrapal. Adyocate for •thepetitioner- Shri Arun 5ao, Sovt. Adyoaite for the respondents. OgALOft&ER (Passed on this 2nd day of July,2008) S. With 1+ie cpnsent pf learned coynsei appeafing fo'' 1+ie papties, the nsatter is heord finolly. 2- 8y this pi^ition the p^itibner^hos Ghalleng^ ^ ^order dtrt^ 12.11.97 (jAnn^yi%P/t5,u^ereb^+he 9"^ °f^re """^ .... / ^ ^^i?^ ?^?^ ^^^t'X^'^^ i ••^^^'•^•^S^ +^t3^^ <; ^- 1. pay scale to •H'ie petitioner' was withdrauin ond the petitioner was poid thereofter daily wa9es as per ColiectoF'srate. 3- The indispu^oble facts in nutgheltare that initia!!y the petitioner uiuS engeiged on dsily wages pn the post of Rasoia and subsesquently he was granted regylar pay scate vide order'da'ted 13.8.1997 (Annexure P/2).' Leamed counse! appeBring fpr •rtie petitiorier would contend that once o right pf u particulor pay' acale hos been granted to •the petitioner in gccopdahce with law, the same cannbt be wrthdraiun, without affording an opporftjnity of hearing. The petitioner has acquired the r-ight to the fixed monthly pay scule as his aervices were regylarized.Thus.'theimpugnedorderisbadand deservas to be quashed. 4, LearTied counsel for the petitioner heavily reiied on a ju^ment and order dated 13 Janua"y, 2006 pasad by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2125/2002 (SantKuniar & o+hers Vs. S-twte of Ghhaftisgarh &<»thsrs)ond order dated 19th April, 2007 passed in W-P.(5y No. 241Q of 2007 CJeetram A others Vs. State of Chhnttisgarh & others), uihepein this Gourt uihile considering the identical issue of reducing +he regular pay scgle gninted earlier, held that the, order peducing the pay Scata pf on empioyee behind his back, iarthout following any procedur-e known to law, is punitive ond visits with civi! consequeneB. The some cannotbe passed wiltiout giving concerned employee, an opporhjnity of hearing. 5. Leai'ned counsel for the petitioner further sybmits +hat +he respondcnts/State pf Chhatt'isgarh preferrec! o Special Leave Petition (CiviONo. 17122/2006 (State of Chhattisgarh & others Vs. Sant Kumai' & others) hefore the Hdn'ble Suprenie Gourt, challenging the order duted t8-1.2(TO6 (supni), passed by thjsCourt- and the same hos been disinissed by the l-(on'b!e Supreme Cotirl-yide oFder-datBd 9-10.2006 uftercondoning thedelay. .6. Leamed counsel oppearing for the parties jomtly ffljbnnt^thot 'this caffii ia aquarelycoveredbythejudginentanAot'derdflted 18.1.200fe ^SSfgSa^SSdSK •:•<». t1 r:i.i 1 «3 •wsa ;:;'^^1 •^:;'?"ti &7SS ssgi ^AS »>»;