JK- s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BtLASPUR W.P.rS)No.1707of2008 Petitioner Versus Respondente 1. 2. 4. Bhagauram Kurre, aged about 38 yeare, s/o Prahaiad Ram Kurre, Occup. Rasoiya, in the department of Tribal,Girfs hiostet Halahulee, Tehsil Kharsiya, District: Raigarh (C.G.) The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretery, Department of Tribal Wslfare, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Buiiding, Raipur, Tehsil and Disfrict Raipur (C.G.). The Commissioner, Tribal Department, Tehsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) The Assistant Commissioner, Trtba! Deveiopment Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). The Collsctor, Triba! Welfare Branch, Disfrict: Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTION SB: Hon'bfe Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Rupesh Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Smitha Ghai. Panei Lawyerforthe rsspondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 19"' day of March, 2008) 1. With the consent of Isarned counsel appearing forthe parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. By this petition the petitioner has chalienged the validity of the order dated 4.10.97 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Coltector, whereunder the grant of regular pay scate to the petitioner was withdrawn and the petitioner was paid thereafter daily wages as per Cotiector's rate. 3. The indisputabte facts in nutshell are that initially the petitioner was engaged on daily wageson e post of Rasoia and subsequenUy he was granted regular pay scale vide order dated 11.11.1992 (Annexure P/2). Learned counsel appeanng for the petitionsr woyld contend that once a right of a particuiar pay scate has besn granted to e petifioner in accordance with law, fte same cannot be wthdrawn, without affording an opportunity of hearing. The pefc'&'oner has acquiredjhe right to the i!i!!!i' 'll : '4 i i >i!yii;l *«• fixed monthfy pay scate as his services were regularized. Thus, the impugned order is bad and deserves to be quashed. 4. Learnec! counsel for the petitioner heaviiy relied on a judgment and order dated 18tn January, 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2125/2002 (Sant Kumar & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & ofters) and ordsr dated 19W Aprii, 2007 passed in W.P:(S) No. 2410 of 2M7 (Jeetram & othsrs Vs. State of Chhattsgarh & othsrs), wherein this Court whils considering the identica! issue of reducins the regular pay scale granted earlier, heid that the order reducing the pay scate of an emptoyee behind his back, without following any procedure known to law, is punitive and visits with civil consequence. The same cannot be passed v/ithout giving concemed emptoyee, an opportunity of hearing. 5. Learned counse! for the petitioner further submits that the respondents/State of Chhattisgarh preferred a Special Leave Petitton (Civil) No. 17122/20C®(State of Chhaffisgarh & others Vs. Sant Kumar & othere) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, challenging the order dated 18.1.2006 (supra), passed by this Court and the same has been dismissed by the Hon'bte Supreme Court vide order dated 9.10.2006 after condoning the delay. S. Leamed counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is squareiy covered by the judgment and orderdated 18.1.2006 passed by this Court in Sant Kumar & others (supra) and theorder dated 19n April, 2007 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2410 of 2007 (Jeet Ram & others Vs. State of Chhattisgahr & others). Thus, the impugnsd order is bad in law being punitive in naturs and passed wiftout afFording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee (petitioner) for putting forward his case. 7. Accordingly ths impusned order dated 4.10.1997 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. Ths petitioner is entitted to reguiar pay scale from the date, the same has been Vinthdravm by the impugned order. subject to verification of facts. The respondents are at liberty So take anysteps, in accordance with !aw. No order asto costs. Sd;- Thakur -^y SfflW I,--- rt;i