HIWieOUm'OFeHMATTttQWlMATBII-ASPUR ^VrttPefitionfSl No. 3060 of 2607 Petttioners Versus Resoondents 1. Laxminarayan Ram S/o Niranjan Ram, aged about 36 yeare working as Rasoiya, Schedute Caste Hostel Jashpur, R/o Ratoli, Post-Cheridand, Tehsil Kunkuri, DistrictJashpur (®.B.) 2. Piyara Ram Sto Agnu Ram, aged about 40 years. woridng 93 Waterman, Government Middle School, Dobh, R/o Oobh, Tehrtl Bagicha, DistrictJashpur (C.G.) 1. State of ChhatBsgarh through tte Secretaiy, Ctepartment of Tribal Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Manfralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Aadim JaU Kalyan Branch, Jashpur, Tehsil & District Jashpur (the ttien Raigarh) (C.G.). 3. Assistant Gommlssloner, Aadhwasi Vikas Tribal, Jashpur (the then Raigarti) (C.G.) 4. Commissioner, Aadhrisi Vikas, Raipur. Singte Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justlce Satish K. Agnihotri. Present: Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate foir tte petitfonecs, Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 11th Day ot June,2007) 1. By this petttton, the petttioners have chaHenged th®validity o/l the order dated 4.10.1997 (Annexure P/4) passad by the AddWonal Collector, Raigarh. whereunder the grant of regular pay scates to the peUUoners were withdrawn and the petittoners were pafd ttiereaftsr daily wages as per Cottector's rate. 2. The indisputabte facts in nutshell, are that InlUally the petitloner No. 1 was engaged on daily wages on the post of Rasolya vkte order datBd 19.2.91 and the petltioner No. 2 was engaged on datlywages on the post of WaiCTRMR vtde order datod 28:4.88 and ther^riter, the petitfeiter N8; I was grantert regiter f»yscato ^de order dated 21.2.1994anit ttie petitfoner No. 2 was granted regular pay scate vide orderdatedl.5.92. 3. Leamed counsel appearing Tor the petttionere would contend that onee a right of a partfcular pay scale has been granted to the peUUoners in accordance wWn law, the same cannot be virithdrawn, without a >rding an opportuntty of hearing. The pettioners have acquired the right to the flxed monthty pay scale as their servlces virere regutarteed. Thus, the impugned order is bad and deserves to be quashed. 4. Leamed counset for the petitioners heavlly relied on a judgment and order dated 18'1' January, 2006 passed by this Court in Writ PeUtfon No. 2125/2002 (Sant Kumar & others Vs. State of Chhattlsgarh & others), wherein this Court white considering ttie klentical Issue of reducing the regular pay scale granted eariter, hetel that <he order reducing the pay scale of an employee behlnd ttietr back, wtttiout following any procedure known to taw Is punitive and vistts with civil consequence. The same cannot be passed without glvtng concemed emptoyee, an opportunity of hearing. 5. Leamed counsel for the peUtioner further submlts that tha respondents/State of ChhatUsgarh preferred a Spedal Leave PetiUen (CMt) No. 171220006 (State of Chhatttsgarti & others Vs. Sant Kumar & others) before the Hon'bto Supreme Court, challengii^i tte erder dated 18.1.2006 (supra), passsd by is Oourt and the same has been dismfesed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide ordsr dated 9.10^008 after condoning the delay. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jotntly submit that this case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 18.1.2(X)6 passed in the case of Sant Kumar & others (supra). Thus, the Impugned order dated 4.10.1997 (Annexure P/4). is bad In law, being puntUve In nature and passad wittiout affording an opportunlty of hearing to the concemed employees (petitioners) for puttlng forwaid fteircases. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 4.10.1997 (Annexure P/4) is quashed. The peUUoners ar®entttled to r^ular pay scalae from the date, the same have been withdrawn by the impugned oreler. No order as to GOStS. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge B/-