‘ bx \Y ‘ . wk . wim M mmw a wwmwmw3 . auzxwd. M3m. Err .wtEm $.w.;n;.s§wEZ4w v‘ .m ”ammuwHHEaw Mxx..§mmm. Ax”;mmu www.” wwwmww!$ gggwmmu, v.94. armwdxmvi W‘ . . 5V ‘ r. .. . uw ¥ .a nw a. r. wuwxmm gnu Exywuxwnvxh. wu‘qubmvmmmw‘W MXf j x», . rxw. . a z ~. .h .,awmwvwZUMZd w wm‘wbmwlm QV Wmulwdéma vbmMwwtrbmw Um 4mm mxUE‘HUQdd.» J. @w HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Patiubn {S} NO. 1861 01'2005 Petitioner : Ram Du'lare Praiapati Sr, othms Versus R6spondents : Sfate of Madhya Pradesh 85 ofhers gixagEe Bench: Hon’ble M1: Justice Sawish 'K. Agnihotri. Shri H. B. Agrawal, Segior Advocaté with Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for Ths PEtitiGnH. S‘mi V. V. S, Mommy? Deputy Advocate General with Miss 'Sunita Jain} Palm} Lawyer for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 5. Norm for ma réspondent No.4. QRDER ( Passed on this27§ay ofFcabruarx 2007) l. By this pardon, the patitionars haw, chalknged th€ vah'dity of the order datéd 21.7.1999 (Annexurs A/8) pass-Ed by tho Additioual Assistan: Dovelopmsat Commissionor, Janpac'i Panchayat, Kota, District— Bilaspur (Respondont No.4), whereunder the grant of regular ecale to the petitioners was withdrawn and the petitioner were paid thereafter daily wages. This order reads as zmder:- g, " WWfiWWWWWw x mmwemeoeewwwme memory—ere .x” 3 '2. The mdisputable facts-in outehell. are that im'tiaily the. petitioners were engaged on daily wages. The petitioner No.1 (Ram Dulare Prajapati) was initialiy appointed on the post of Khalasi vide order dated 253. 1985 (Annexure A] 1)’. The.‘petitjoner No.2 (Rarlguial Yadav) was initially appointed on 18.8.1971 (Anoexure A] 2) on the post of Khaiasi. The petitioner No.3 (Shiv Kumar Shukla) Wao initialiy ,‘1 )L @f appoinmd on the post of Time Kmper Vick Order c1ated 1.10.1986 iAnnaxum A; A for a permd of 89 C1 ys, ant“; the pEtitioxmr No. 4 {Bahadur Ram Sahu) waS miually appom‘md on flm post oi Tim: K6606: vide‘ordsr dated 2.2. 1980 {Amiexure A,’ 4). Thamaitm Vlds ordm dated 28 4 199% {Ammxum Rf 7) on compla‘rion 0f {mica years of ssrvice 1113 to 1 i 1990 thp pemlonsr No 1 was tréatad aS member of the Wmkcharged and Contingency Temporary Service Wei. 1.2.1990 and hs was grallttti reguEaI pay soak of Rs. 750}-. T116 pomionor No.2 was granted rogular pay soak of Rs 725’ vv € f 1 1986 (v1c1e sorvice book, paga 2’2 of the. ‘pstitiony Vido 0mm“ dated 8 6 1997 tho pemuoner No a was ixcateo as mombér of the Workcharged arld Contillgency Temporary Servrce w e f 1 1 9O on complonon of thlee yeais service axld he was grmted regular pay scale of Rs. 825,! e. Vlde order (iated 8 6 1997 the petitioner No.4 was and Contmgency Temporary ireated as member of the Workcharged Sewice wef. 1.1.1990. on completion of three years service ami he was graited legul pay scale ofRs. 825,‘ -. acedrdailce with the. reguiar pay scale gmnted to them Bit all oi a suéden. vide impugnezl order dated 21.7 .1999 1t was duected that on account 01 excess staff m the ofhce, on the posts of Khalasi and Time \ are transferrecl to tle Qural Keeper, the services of the oemloners ‘3 Engineering Departmerxt on (iaily wages, Whereas they were getu'ng 1egu1ar pay scale Advocate appearing for the Shri H B Agarwal Earner} Senior g yetitioner with Shri Ajay Shrwastava r—Advocate would contead that once a tight of a particular pay scale has been graJJted to the petiticmers in accordarlce With law, the same ca:mot be Vxithdrrivrn ' after a period of {we — six years, Without att'ordirrg an opportunity of ffw Learrled counse1 appeariilg for the petitioner submits that accordingly the petitroners were corlmued 111 serv ce alld were gettmg salary in lismng. pay scale as ,th6y becéme Work Em3310y663. Thus ms impugned order is. qua$hed. 6‘ Lsamad counssl for tho potitioners hoavily refa‘rod to a judgment and 006 passed by, this Court in Writ ?etition State of Chkattisgaxh 8:» N0. 2125/2002 (Sank Kama: & others Vs. othms}, wherein this Court while consideriug the identical issue of reducing The regu’iar pay scale granted Earlier, hold that tho order \ reducing the pay scale of all employee behiad their back, Without ’i followiug any procedure known to law is punitive and visits with civil \consequsnce. Thg sama caunot be pa$ssd employ€e, an opportunity of hearing. 7 v Loarned SCC 15 omploye Hon’b1e Tho pe‘dtionerS have acquired tho right to the fixec‘t monthly ohargod alld Comingoncy Paid bad and desservos to be. ordor dated 18th Ja1n13a‘y, 2 Without giving concanlod counsoi for the petitionor also submits that in $313.33: Kumar’s case (supra), this Court has relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan ohukla Vs. {mien of India s5 others { (1994) 6 4} wherein, Whilo considoring tho rmiuction of pay of the e from Rs. 190k per month to Rs. 181l— per month the Supromo Court has held as under:— “The appellaht has obviousiy been visited with civil consequences but he had been gremted no opportuni‘gr to Show cause against the reductiou of his basic pay. He was got‘even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back Without iollowing ally procedure known to law. There has, thus, been a iiagrant Violation of the pmciples of natural jus‘tiee and the appeilant has been made to suifer huge fmahcial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no ’such order which has the effect of an employee suileahg Civil consequences should be hassed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter.” LEaInad counS€1 for the patitiona" further submits that t11€ rayondmltsi Stai€ of Chhattisgarh preferred a Spacial Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1’7 122j2006 (Sate of Chhattisgarh 63% others Vs. SaQ‘L Kumar 8L others) before the Hon’blc Supreme Court, challenging the order dated 18. 1.2006 (supra), passed by this Court and me same has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Courtlvicie order dateci 9.10.2006 after condoning the delay. Shri V. V. S. Murthy, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents] State with Miss Sunita Jam, Panel Lawyer, do not dispute the fact. in View of the foregoing, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 21.7.1999 (Annexure A] 8) is bad in iaw, being punitive in nature, without aii‘ord'mg an opportunity of heaiing to the concerned employees (petitioners) for putting forward their cases. Accordingly the order dated 21.7.1999 {Annexure A/8) is quashed. The petitioners are entitled to regular pay scales from the date the same have been withdrawn by the impugned order. No order as to costs. " e 11 Sd/- i I‘ atish K. Agnihotr Judge Tjkur ha S i