H§G§=§ 035R? W: $HHA?TES8&R§¢§: EILA3Pi§§ Wri §§ei§té€m 45‘} Na. 2’?’84 of 2%? i (W§'ii Petition um’er Aft'iCEe 228 0f we Censi§€uiriora o? inu‘ia) S8; Hog’me Mr. JLisiica $at§siw K. Agmhm¥i ‘ Pyasgm: SM Haf§sr1 Kamiya, cwmai fey we wiiiiamfs KG. Sumta Jain, 9aae§ Lawyei for the Siate. ' iERAi. gRBER E9a$sad ma ”it“ May, 2%?) By €h§s §ei§ié0m the petiiicnew have cheééenged me va§id§fy of the om‘er dated 4-?0-18’547 (Annexme PM}; passed by zine Add§ii0eei Ceiiector. Raigarh, whereuncier the gram of regma? ea}; scaies ‘te the ‘ ?‘$€§t§anars a KamEe Ram S/e. Late Lo‘nara Ram, Aged 4G years, workmg as Waéerman‘ Ric. ChadEya, Tahsi§ $a5‘npua Elisa? Jashpuy, CG. 2"; GLz§ab Far; Smuhan, Sic. $amuram ' Chcmra b5” Aged 35 years, workmg as Driven. RIG. Navaicii (Dhamadand), Tahsii Kunkuri, Distt. Jasmtsr, (33 3‘3 Lae§ambar Ram Sic. Laie Sonsai Ram, aged 41 was, working as Chowkiéa‘r. Rm. Kankuri Eist.Jas%3pur, CG. Versus Resgwmiem3 1) State of C?1hat€isqar%1, ‘mrough the Secretary, DegaaéEment of Yribai W'az‘are, ‘ UKS. Bhawarz, Mantraiaya, Raipur, CG. 2) Coiiector, Awim Jati KaSyan Byanw, Jas‘npur. Tahsi! & Gist. Jashgur (The them Raigarh) CG. 3} ASS§$tam Commissiomer, Aadivasi — ’§}<as T:iba$, Jashpw (The then Raigaih), CG. 4} Camm§ssianesa Aadivas§ ‘J‘ikas, Raapw, CG. *1.” y peiitionefs were Mfndrawn am ihe pet§§icners were paic: the;ea¥ier aiaiiy wages as per Coiiemor’s rake. 2) The indisputabée facts, in nutsheff, are fhat iniiiaiiy the petiiioner No.7 was engaged on dany wages an the post of Waterman vide order dated 21 ~1 D— 1992, the petiticner No.2 was engaged on daily wages on the post of Driver, vide order dated 31—3—199C; and the petitioner No.3 was engaged on daily wages on the post of Chowkidar vide order daied 2-1 2—1991 and thereafter, the peimoner No.1 was granted regufar pay scaie vid'e order dated 13-7—1997, the perjtioner No.2 was gran‘red reguiar pay scare vide order dated 27-1995 and the petiiEoner No.3 was granted regurar pay scaie vide order dated ‘3-12—19§4. 3. Learned counee! appearing for ine perirroners wou§d oonierd that once a righi of a padr‘ouiar pay scaie has been granied to the gaenrroners in accordance with raw, rhe same cannoi foe wi-thdrawn. wiinout a’ffordEng an opportunity of nearing. The oeritioners have acqurred ine rignf in ine fixed montniy pay soaie as r‘neir services were reguiarized. Thus, the impugned order is bad and deeerves io be quashed. 4. Learned counsei r‘or the petitioners heaviiy retted on a judgment and order dated 18“ January, 2006 pasee‘d by this Court in Writ Petition No.2‘i25/2002 (Basant Kumar & others Ve. State of Cnhattiegarh it; otnere), where this Court while considering the identioai issue of reducing the reguiar pay scate granted eartier, hetd that the order following any procedure Known to laws is punitive and visits with civil consequences The same cannot ‘oe passed Without affording an opportunity or" hearing to the concerned employee. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further suomits that the respondents/State ot' CG preferred a Speciai Leave Petition (Civil) No. i7122f2GO6 (State of Chhattisgarh & otherev’e. Sent Kumar & others) before the Hon’bi’e Supreme Court). onaiienging the order dated 18—1-2OG6 (suprai. passed by this Court and the same has been dismissed by the Hon’bte Supreme Court vide order dated 9-1 9—2006 after condoning the deiay. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointiy submit that this case is squarely covered by the Judgment and order dated 184-2006 passed in. the I. r ,5~ case of Sant Kumar & others (supra). Thus, the impugned order cared 4-10‘ ‘;997 (Annexure PM), is bad in law, being punitive in nature arid paSsea’ Withoui affording an opporiunity cf hearing to the concerned empEoyees (petitioners) for putting forward their cases. 7. Accordingiy, the order dated 4—1 0-1 997 (Annexure PM) is quashed. The petitioners are entitled to reguiar pay soaiee from the date he same have been withdrawn by the impugned order‘ No order as to costs. i Sd/_ V Satish K. Agnihotri i Judge Raid