HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR /.P.rS)No. 4507 of 2007 Petitioner Mshattar Oas S/o. Shri Sikhdeo Mahant, aged about 44 years, Occupation - Ssrvice, posted at Pre matric Baiak Schedule Tribe Chhatrawas Raigarh, r/o. Village Ourda, Tahsil & Thana Kharsiya, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through fr>e Secretary, Triba! welfare Development, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Commissioner Department of Tribal Welfare Development Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Assistant Commissioner Departmsnt of Triba! Welfare Development Raigarh, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Collector Raigarh, Distt. - Raigarh (C.G.) 5. The Coilector Adim Jati kalyan Vibhag Raigarh Tahsii & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) WRITPETITOiNUNDERARTiCLE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTION OF JNDIA Singte Bench : Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J, Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate for ths petitioner. Shri A'ok Batehj, Govt. Advocate forthe respondsnts. ORALORDER (Passed on this 12th day of February, 2008) By thjs pettion ttie petitioner has chalienged She validify of the order dated 4.10.1897 (Annexure A/4), vAereunder the grant of reguiar pay scate to the petitioner was withdrawn and the peti'tioner was paid thereafter daiiy wages as per CoKector's rate. 2. The indisputabte facte in nutshell are that initialSy the pettioner was engaged on dai!y wages and subsequently he v/as granted • ,;< r,i 5. u regular payscate w.e.f. 18.4.1993, vide onder dated 15.12.1993 (Annsxure P/3). Leamed counsei appearing for the petitioner vrould contend Sist once a right of a partscular pay scale has been accrued to the petitioner in accordance with iaw, the same cannot be withdrawn, without affording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner has acquirsd the right to tiie fixed monthly pay scale as his serv'tees were reguiarized. Thus, the impugned order is bsd and deserves to be quashed. Lsarned counse! for the petitioners heayily reiied on a juc^ment and order dated 18' January, 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2125/2002 (Sant Kumar & others Vs. Stete of Chhaffisgarh & others), wherein this Court while considering ths identteal issue of reducing the regutar pay scale granted eariier, heid that 8ie order reducing the pay scaie of an employee behind his back, \viShout foilowing any procsdure known to law, is punitive and wsits w'th civil consequence. The same cannot be passed without giving concemed employee, an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for itie petitioners forther submits that ttie respondents/State of Chhattisgarh preferred a Specia! Leave Petitton (Civil) No. 17122/20CK (SSate of Chhattisgarh &others Vs. Sant Kumar & others) before the Hon'bte Supreme Court, chalienging the order dated 18.1.2006 (supra), passed by this Court and the same has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vids order dated 9.10.2006 atter condoning the deiay. Learned counse! appearing for the parties jointiy submit that this case is squarsiy covered by fte judsment and order dateti 18.1.20% passed by thte Court in Sant Kumar & others (supra) s. y- Thakur and the order dated 1 1 Juiy, 2006 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1792 of 2005 ( Manmohan Patel & othere Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others). Thus, the impugned ordere are bad in !aw being punihve in nature and passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employees (petitionsrs) for putting foniyard their cases. Accordingly the impugned order dated 4..10.1997 (Annexure P/4) is qusshed. The petitioner is entitled to regular pay scate from the date, the same has been withdrawn. No order asto Satish K. Agnihotri Judge