HI6J-1 COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AJ EELASPUR \V. P. (5) No. 6127 of 2007 Petitioner Rujendr'a Nath Ram, oged about 42 years, 5/o !aloRam< Occup. Watermon, in the Oepartmerit of Tribo! ,^—, t. Boys Hostei. Pandri- Vsrsus lOndEFi'iS 1- 3. 4. 5. Pcni, BSsck: Fsraabhar. OisTricT: Juahpur (C.6.) 'Hie Stute of Chhattiagarh, Throuyh +he Secrstary, DeparTmen? sf Tribal Wetfare, Montraluyu, b.K.5. Building, Raipur, Tehsil and Esistrict Raipur (C.6.). The Commissioner. Triba! Deparrment. Tehsil fflid DistricT Jas?-ipur (C.6.) The Assistant Co(nmiasiorier. Tr-ibal DevelopmenT Jashpur, Distr'ic? Jashpur {C.G.}. The Culiector. Tribal Weifane Branch^ Dtetrict: Jashpur (C.6.) Principal, Adim Jati Kdlyan Balak Higher secondary Sd-ioo!, Pandri- Pesni, Oistrict: Jashpur (C.A.) WRIT pETrrroN UNOER ARTECLE 226 OF THI CQNSTTPJTION SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Ayishotn. J. Shri Sautani Khetrapol, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panei Lawyer for the respondents- ORALOR&ER (Passsd on this 4th day of Juiy, 2008) 1. Vvith the consent uf ieamed counsei dppeariny for the parties. the inutter is heard finuSiv. 2. Ry this petition the petitiorier has challenged •tiie validity of the order dated 11.3.1995 (Annex-ure P./l), whereby the grant of r-eguiar z. pay scaie to the petitioner wss wfi'hdrawfn. Therenfter, the petitioner Wi-as puid daiiy wages as per Coiiector's rate. 3. The indisputuble focts in nutsheii are that initiaiiy the petitioner was engaged on daily wagea on the post of Woterman and aubsequent!y he was 9ranted t-egular- pay Scale vide orcier dated 9.12.1994 (Annexur-e P/2). Learned counsei uppearing for the petitioneF would contend that once u right of a pari-icular poy scate has been grunted to the petil-ioner in accordance with law. the Same cnnnot be imi-riidrawn, without affording an oppor-funity of heai'ing. The petitioner hss acuuired the riyht to the fixed inonthiy pay scale as his services were. reguiurized. Thus, •tiie iiripugried order iS bad isnc! deserves to be auashed- 4- Learned counsel for the petitioner heaviiy reiied on a Judgment and order dated 18 Januoiry, 2006 passea' by this Court in 'w'rit Peti-frion No. 2125/2002 (Sant Kumar &. others Vs. Sta-te of Chhattisgar'h & others) oncl order dateci 19 April, 2007 passed in 'A'.P.f.S) No- 2410 of 2007 (Jeetrom & others Vs. -Stnte of Ciihattiagarh & others), w'rier-em this Court whiie considering the identical issue of reducing the regular pay scaSe gr-an'ted earlier. heid thut the order reduciny the pay scale of on employee behind hia bock, uiithout foliowing any procedure knoum to !aui, is puni'i'ive and visits witi-i ciyi! consequence. The same cannot be passed witSiout yivirig concer-ned en>p!oyee, an opportuCTity' of hearing. 5. Leamed counse! for -riie petitioner furrt-ier- submits thut the respundents/Stste Of Chha'M'isgarh preferred a ^ecial Leave Petition (Civi!) No. 17122/2006 (State of Chhutti^arh A others Vs- Sant Kumar- &, otl-iers) before the Hon'bte Supreme Court, chailenging ti-ie order dated 18.1.2006 (supr-u), passed fay this (-ouri' and the same hds been dismisseci by' the Hon'bie Suprsme Courl- vicie order- ciated 9-10.2006 af-ter condoning the delay. 6. Leamed counse! appearir^ for the parties jointiy submit that this case is squarely cover-ed by the judgment snd order dated 18-1.2006 ^' possed by this Cour-i- in Sant Kumur A others (ajpra) and the order dated i9t11 flprii, 2007 passsd in W.P.(S) No. 2410 of 2007 (Jeet Rarn &. oih&r-a \'s. State of Chhattisgahr- A others). Thus, the inipugned order is bad in iaw being punitive in nature and passed without affording an opporlunity of hearing to the concerned employee (petitioner) for putting forward his case- 7. Accurdmgfy ihs iiripugned order duted 11.3.i995 (Anneifure P/l) is quashed. The petil-ioner is entitied tu reguiar pay scnle from the date, the same has been withdnnsin by the iwpugned order; subject to verification of facts. The respondents are at liberty to take esny Steps, in accordtince wi1+i !aw. orcier asto costs- Sd/- Satish KAgnihotri Judge Thakdr