H!QH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(S)No. 6185 of 2007 Petitioner Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. Devesh Chandra Verma, S/o Shri T. R. Verma, Aged about 40 years, R/o HUDCO, UG 84, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) State of Chhattssgarh, Through the Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). Engineer In Chlef, Public Works Department, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Engineer, Pubiic Works Department, National Highway & Bridge Consiruction Region Raipur, (C.G.) Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Division, Jagdalpur, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTiCLE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTION SB: Hon'bis Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Ajay Shrivastavs, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on this 14th day of Syiarch, 2008) 1. Despite severai opportunities granted to Uie State counsel, no return has been filed. Leamed counse! appearing for the respondente/Stats submits that despite his best efforts.he is not in a position to obtain instructions from the State/Respondents. The matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this petition the petitioner has chaltensed ttie validit/ of the order dated 26.4.2007 (Annexure P,'1) psssed by the respondent No.3, whsreunder the grant of reguiar pay scale to the petitioner v/as withdrawn and the petitioner was paid thereafter daily v/ages as per Coilector's rats. 3. The indisputabte facte in nutshel! are that initially the petitioner was engaged on daily wagss on the post of Fieid Assistant and subsequently he v/as granted regutar pay scais vide order dated 12.12.200S -1 (Annexure P/2). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that once a right of a particular pay scale has bsen granted to the petitioner in accordance with law, the same cannot bs withdrawn, wjthout affording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner has acquired the nght to the fixed monthly pay scale as his services were regularized. Thus, the impugned order is bad and desen/es to be quashed. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitfoner heaviiy relied on a judgment and order dated 18 January, 2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2125/2002 (Sant Kumar & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others), wherein this Court white considering the identical issue of reducing ths regufar pay scale granted eariier. he!d that the order rsducing the pay scate of an empfoyee behind his bsck, without foilov/ing any procsdure known to law, is punitive and visite wfth civi! consequence. The same csnnot be passed v/ithout giving concerned empioyee, sn opportunity of hssring. 5. Learned counsel for the petifcner ftirther submits that the respondents/State of Chhath'sgarh preferred a Specia! Leave Petition (Civi!) No. 17122/2006 (State of Chhattisgarh & others Vs. Sant Kumar & others) before the Hon'bte Supreme Court, chaltenging the order dated 18.1.2006 (supra), passed by this Court snd the same has been di'smissed by Sie Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 9.10.20{^ after condoning the delay. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is squarsly covered by the judgment and ordsr 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 & othere). Thus, the impugned ordsr is bad in law being punifive in naturs and passed without affording an opportunity of hsaring to the concemed employee (pefc'tioner) for puffing forward his case. 7. Accordjngfy the impugned ordsr dated 26.4.2007 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale from the date, She same has been withdrawn by the impugned order, subject to verification of facts. The respondents are at liberty to taice any steps, in accordancs with law. No order asto costs. SA'- SarisbK.Agmhom Judge Thakur