Raj Kumar and Anr. Vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr.

1

CW P -2832-2022 and others connect e d matters

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

	P Reserved ronounced on:	on:-09.10.2025 October 15, 202 5
		CWP-2832-202 2
1. RajK umar and another		.....Petitioner s
	VERSUS
Haryana Vi dyut Prasaran Nigam	Limited an d another	.....Responde nts
		CWP-31655-202 4
2. Ajay		.....Petitione r
	VERSUS
Haryana Vi dyut Prasaran Nigam	Limited an d others	.....Responde nts
		CWP-4942-202 3
3. Viren der Kumar		.....Petitioner s
	VERSUS
Haryana Vi dyut Prasaran Nigam	Limited an d others	.....Responde nts
		CWP-4154-202 2
4. Dalje et Kumar		.....Petitione r
	VERSUS
The State of Haryana and others		.....Responde nts

¶5

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶6

2

¶7

CW P -2832-2022 and others connect e d matters

¶8

CWP-7253-20 2 3

¶9

Sanj e ev Kumar VERSU S State of Ha r yana and others

¶10

.....Petition e r

¶11

.....Respond e nts

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶13

Present : Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate w ith Mr.Varunveer Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner in C WP-2832-2022.

¶14

Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate f o r petitioner in CWP-7253-2023. Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate fo r the petitioner(s) in CWP-4154 - 2022. Mr. Sardavinder Goyal with M r.Nishant Sindhu, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-4942-2 0 23.

¶15

Mr. Bhim Kumar Bagri, Advo c ate for petitioner in CWP31655-2024.

¶16

Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate fo r respondents No.1 and 2 in CWP-31655-2024.

¶17

Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate for the respondents No.2 and 3 in CWP-4154-2022.

¶18

Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Advocate fo r respondent No.4 in CWP4154-2022.

¶19

Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate f o r respondent-HVPNL in CWP2832-2022,CWP-4942-2023 a n d CWP-7253-2023.

¶20

¶21

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

3

¶23

CW P -2832-2022 and others connect e d matters

¶24

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

¶25

1. This common order shall dis p ose of the aforementioned civi l writ petitio n s as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for t h e sake of bre v ity, the facts are taken from CWP-2832-2022 . 2. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 2 2 6 of the Co n stitution of India for the issu a nce of a writ in the nature o f Certiorari t o quash the Final Ranking Lis t dated 14.01.2022 (Annexure P - 11) of JE/ C ivil under the 18% Degree H olders Promotion Quota and t o further restrain the Respondents from re v erting the Petitioners from the i r present pro m oted posts.

¶26

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶27

3. Briefly stated, the Petitioners a re employees of Haryana Vidy u t Prasaran N i gam Limited (hereinafter, ‘HV P NL’). Petitioner No. 1 joined a s a Junior E n gineer (Civil) on 25.07.2008, and Petitioner No. 2 joined o n 23.07.2008 . The Petitioners subsequently acquired their BE degrees in Civi l Engineerin g on 20.03.2013 and 21.09.2015 , respectively.

¶28

4. The genesis of the present di s pute lies in the interpretation o f Regulation 9 of the PSEB Service of Engineers (Civil) Recruitme n t Regulation s , 1965 (as applicable to HVPNL) (hereinafter ‘19 6 5 Regulation s ’). Vide a notification dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure P-1), t h e Responden t -Nigam amended Regulation 9. The relevant part of t h e regulation f or promotion to the post of As s istant Engineer (Civil) under t h e 18% quota f or degree-holders is reproduce d as under:

¶29

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

4

¶31

CW P -2832-2022 and others connect e d matters

¶32

“ (ii) From amongst Engineering Subordinates as defined i n Regulation -2(g) possessing AMI E/ BE qualification with 5 yea r s servi c e as JE/Civil .” (Emphasis sup p lied)

¶33

5. Relying on this notification, w hich required 5 years of servi c e as a JE wh e ther before or after acquiring t h e qualification of AMIE/BE, t h e Petitioner N o. 1 was promoted as Assista n t Engineer (Civil) on 05.12.201 3 r (Annexure P-2) and Petitioner No. 2 was promoted as Assistant Engine e (Civil) on 2 3.01.2017 (Annexure P-3). Th e reafter, both Petitioners receiv e d further pro m otions based on their service i n the cadre of Assistant Enginee r . Petitioner N o. 1 was promoted as Assista n t Executive Engineer (Civil) o n 11.05.2016 (Annexure P-4) and subsequen t ly as Executive Engineer (Civi l ) on 10.07.2 0 18 (Annexure P-6). Petitioner N o. 2 was promoted as Assista n t Executive E ngineer (Civil) on 01.03.2019 ( A nnexure P-5). 6. In 2021, the Respondent-Nigam took a decision, vide offi c e order date d 30.06.2021 (Annexure P-7), stating that the original 20 0 6 notificatio n (Annexure P-1) contained a n “inadvertent mistake.” It w a s asserted th a t the intent of the rule-making a uthority was always to require “ 5 years servi c e as such ” (i.e., after acquir i ng the BE degree) and not “ a s JE/Civil.” C onsequently, a “correction” w a s issued vide office order dat e d 13.05.2021 , replacing the words “as JE/C i vil” with “as such” and maki n g this change effective retrospectively from 1 4 .11.2006. 7. Based on this retrospectively a pplied “correction,” a Tentati v e Ranking L i st (Annexure P-8) was issue d . The Petitioners filed detail e d representat i ons (Annexures P-9 & P-10) o bjecting to this list, contendi n g

¶34

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

5

¶36

CW P -2832-2022 and others connect e d matters

¶37

that their accrued rights and past pro m otions could not be unsettle d . However, t he Respondents issued the i m pugned Final Ranking List o n 14.01.2022 (Annexure P-11). This list effe c tively places the Petitioners at a - junior posi t ion, making them liable for re v ersion from their current, lon g r held prom o tional posts. Aggrieved by thi s retrospective alteration of the i seniority, t h e Petitioners have approached t h is Court. CONTENTIONS

¶38

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) inter alia contended th a t the Petitio n ers were promoted as Assistan t Engineers strictly in accordan c e with the u nambiguous language of th e notification dated 14.11.20 0 6 (Annexure P-1), which explicitly prescrib e d “5 years service as JE/Civil . ” Their furth e r promotions to the posts of A ssistant Executive Engineer a n d Executive E ngineer were based on this v alid initial promotion and the i r subsequent service, and do not suffer from a ny infirmity. 9. It is argued that the decision d ated 30.06.2021 (Annexure P- 7 ) cannot be a p plied with retrospective effect f rom 14.11.2006. The Petitioner s , n having rec e ived multiple promotions ove r several years have acquired a accrued rig h t to those posts. Such vested r ights cannot be taken away by a subsequent amendment or “correction” ap p lied retrospectively. At best, t h e new interp r etation could only apply pro s pectively from the date of t h e decision. F u rthermore, it is a settled prin c iple of service jurisprudence, a s upheld by t h e Hon’ble Supreme Court in n umerous judgments, that accru e d rights cann o t be extinguished by a retrospe c tive amendment. In this conte x t,

¶39

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

6

¶41

CW P -2832-2022 and others connect e d matters

¶42

reliance was placed on the judgement of th e Hon’ble Supreme Court in Stat e of Madhya Pradesh v. Yogendra Shrivastava 2010(1) SCT 434 .

¶43

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents inter al i a submitted t hat the original office order d a ted 14.11.2006 (Annexure P- 1 ) contained a n “inadvertent mistake.” The p r oposal approved by the Board o f Directors o n 27.10.2006 intended to use the phrase “5 years service a s such.” The use of “as JE/Civil” in the pu b lished notification was a cleric a l error. The o ffice order dated 13.05.2021 w as, therefore, a correction of th i s typographi c al mistake.

¶44

11. It is further argued that a cl a rification or correction in a ru l e always rela t es back to the date of its incep t ion. Since the rule was original l y intended t o read “as such” in 2006, the 2021 correction rightly appli e s retrospecti v ely from 14.11.2006. This is not a fresh amendment but a rectificatio n of an error to reflect the tru e intent of the framers. Learn e d n counsel placed reliance on the judgement o f the Hon’ble Supreme Court i S.S. Garewal Vs. State of Punjab 1993 (3) SCT 503 .

¶45

OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS

¶46

12. I have heard the learned c o unsel for the parties and ha v e perused th e record with their able assista n ce. This Court is of the opini o n that the iss u e involved in the present is n o longer Res integra and stan d s settled by t h e judgements of the Hon’ble A pex Court. A Two-Judge Ben c h of the Ho n ’ble Supreme Court in M.B. Joshi v. Satish Kumar Pande y (1993) Supp. (2) SCC 419 has held that w here the rules provide that t h e

¶47

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

7

¶49

CW P -2832-2022 and others connect e d matters

¶50

diploma-holders having obtained a degree of engineering working as Su b Engineers s hall be eligible for promotio n as Assistant Engineers after 8 years expe r ience and 10% posts are reserv e d for that category, then once t h e person wh i le working as sub-engineer a c quires the degree, he becom e s entitled fo r the incentive of acceleration in promotion. If these 8 yea r s counted fr o m the date of acquiring qual i fications the whole purpose o f prescribing incentive is defeated. Further, a s per the well settled principle o f service jurisprudence, in the absence of s p ecific rule the seniority among s t persons ho l ding similar posts in the same c adre has to be determined on t h e basis of le n gth of service not from the dat e of acquiring degree or from a n y other fortu i tous circumstance. The Hon’bl e Court speaking through Justi c e N.M. Kasli w al observed as follows:

¶51

“ 13. If we accept the contention of Mr. Ashok Sen, it would defea t the very scheme and the purpose of giving incentive of addin g educational qualification by diploma-holders while continuing i n service in case the period of 8 years is counted from the date o f obtaining graduate degree in engineering. It may be noted that n o such argument was raised even from the side of the respondent s before the Tribunal. If such interpretation as now sought to b e advanced by Mr. Ashok Sen, learned senior counsel is accepted, n o r relief could have been granted to the respondent Satish Kuma Pandey. We would illustrate the above position on admitted fact s that Shri Satish Kumar Pandey had joined as Sub- Engineer on 23.8.1980, but had acquired the degree of engineering in May, 1987 . In that situation, Mr Satish Kumar becomes eligible only in May , 1995 and he could not be considered as eligible in December 198 9 when these Sub-Engineers were considered for promotion a s Assistant Engineers. Even otherwise, if this period of 8 years i s counted from the date of acquiring degree then this incentive o f adding the qualification during the continuation of service an d

¶52

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶53

8

¶54

CW P -2832-2022 and others connect e d matters

¶55

getting the advantage of acceleration in promotion in 8 years woul d for all practical purposes become nugatory and of no benefit .

¶56

14. It is further important to note that in the cases before us, th e Government itself has been adopting the practice and makin g promotion as contended by the appellants and we are upholdin g such practice. In N. Suresh Nathan's case also this Court ha d upheld the practice followed by the Government. It is also wel l settled principle of service jurisprudence that in the absence of an y specific rule, the seniority amongst persons holding similar posts i n the same cadre has to be determined on the basis of the length o f service and not on any other fortuitous circumstance .

¶57

xx xx xx

¶58

16. I n these circumstances mention e d above, we are clearly of t h e view that the Tribunal was wrong i n determining the seniority fro m the da te of acquiring degree of engi n eering and it ought to have be e n dete r mined on the basis of length of service on the post of Su b - Engi n eer and the State Government was right in doing so and the r e ” was no infirmity in the orders p assed by the Government…. (Em p hasis supplied)

¶59

13. The judgement in M.B. Joshi (supra) was followed by t h e Two-Judge s Bench of the Hon’ble Supre m e Court in D. Stephen Joseph v . Union of India & Ors. (1997) 4 SCC 753 a nd the Three-Judges Benches o f the Hon’bl e Court in Anil Kumar Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delh i (2000) 1 SCC 128 and Chandravathi P.K. & Ors. v. C.K. Saji & Ors . (2004) 3 SCC 734 .

¶60

14. The issue was examined agai n by a Three-Judge Bench of t h e Hon’ble A p ex Court in T. Valsan v. K. Kanagaraj 2023 (7) SCC 614 , wherein th e Rules initially provided that 8 0 % of the vacancies for Assista n t Engineer w ere to be filled by promotion and 20% by direct recruitme n t.

¶61

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶62

9

¶63

CW P -2832-2022 and others connect e d matters

¶64

Promotion w as open to Junior Engineers with three years’ service if holdi n g a Degree i n Electrical Engineering, and se v en years’ service if holding on l y a Diploma. A subsequent amendment ear m arked 50% of promotional pos t s for Degre e -holder Junior Engineers wit h three years’ service, and t h e remaining 50% for Diploma-holders w ith seven years’ service. T h e significanc e of this scheme was that Degre e holders required fewer years o f service for promotion, whereas Diploma h olders required more. The iss u e before the Court was whether a Diploma-holder, who acquired a Degr e e during ser v ice, could count his pre-degre e service towards the qualifyi n g period for p romotion to Assistant Engine e r. After examining the aforesa i d judgments, the Hon’ble Court held that no d istinction can be drawn betwe e n the period o f service rendered before or a f ter the acquisition of the degre e , so long as the degree is acquired and is t h e basis for consideration of t h e promotion. Accordingly, for the Departme n t concerned, the view taken in D . Stephen Joseph (supra) was declared to b e the applicable law. The Hon’b l e Apex Cour t speaking through Justice S.K. K aul has held as follows:

¶65

“ 19. On examining the controversy in the context of the argument s urged and the judicial precedents, we can say that actually, the issu e is no more res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in C . Chakkaravarthy & Ors. v. M. Satyavathy, IAS & Ors. (2015) 1 6 SCC 652. Though it is a two-Judge s Bench view, the very issue h a s been examined, which is really soug h t to be debated before us. It w a s obse r ved in para 10 as under:

¶66

"There is, in our opinion, con s iderable merit in that submissi o n of the petitioners. There is no gainsaying that this Court ha s unequivocally declared that promotion to the post of Assistan t

¶67

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶68

10

¶69

CW P -2832-2022 and others connect e d matters

¶70

Engineers in the service shall be on the basis of merit an d merit alone and that seniority of the candidates cannot b e taken as an input for determining such merit. This Court ha s also very clearly rejected the procedure followed by th e Government whereby the date on which the candidate ha d acquired his degree qualification was taken as a determinin g factor. That being so, and given the large number o f candidates eligible for consideration the Government wa s entitled to adopt the method of restricting the zone o f consideration based on the number of vacancies. Inasmuch a s the Government relied upon t h e DoPT guidelines for achievi n g that objective it committed no fault. The question, however, i s whether the Government could draw-up a list of eligibl e candidates not by reference to the length of service in th e cadre but by reference to the date on which the candidate s acquired the eligibility which, as noticed earlier, was itsel f dependent upon the date on which the candidate acquired th e degree qualification. Since, however, the acquisition of a degree qualification itself was not based on any consistentl y uniform criterion, test or procedure, the date on which such a qualification was acquired and resultantly the date on which the candidate attained their eligibility was also bound to b e anything but uniform and nondiscriminatory. As between th e date of acquiring eligibility and the date of entering service a s r a Section Officer/Junior Engineer the latter was, in ou opinion, a more intelligible, fair and reasonable yardstick t o be applied for drawing-up the list of eligible candidates by th e review DPC. Inasmuch as the review DPC relied upon th e date of acquiring eligibility as the basis for preparation of th e list of eligible candidates, it committed a mistake which need s to be corrected ."

¶71

20. A reading of the aforesaid parag r aph shows that the promotion t o the p ost of Assistant Engineer was to be based on merit and me r it alon e . The seniority of candidates c o uld not be taken into account f o r dete r mining such merit. In this merit-based selection, there was a qualifying prescription to be so considered on merits. The tim e period spent in the service as Junior Engineer was at varianc e dependent on whether the person had a qualifying Degree or a qualifying Diploma. There was no necessity for a Degree to perform

¶72

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶73

11

¶74

CW P -2832-2022 and others connect e d matters

¶75

the job of a Junior Engineer, and all persons were alike. Th e distinction only came into play when the merit-based promotion ha d to take effect. Thus, as to when the person obtained the degree as a method of advancement of his knowledge and entitling him to a n earlier consideration in the time period would not be relevant .

¶76

xx xx xx

¶77

22. A three Judges Bench of this Co u rt in Chandravathi P.K. & Or s . (sup r a) referred to a number of e arlier judgments on the issu e , inclu d ing D. Stephen Joseph (supra ) , Satpal Antil v. Union of Ind i a (199 5 ) 4 SCC 419, Anil Kumar Gupt a (supra), A.K. Raghumani Sin g h v. G o pal Chandra Nath (2000) 4 S C C 30 and Pramod K. Pankaj v . State of Bihar (2004) 3 SCC 723 an d quoted with approval of the la s t of th e se judgments. The principle laid down is that in the absence o f any statutory provision or rule made thereunder or under th e proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, onc e an incumbent is appointed to the post according to rules, thei r seniority has to be counted from the date of appointment .

¶78

23. In Shailendra Dania & Ors. (supra) case, it was noticed in par a 36 that the past practice would be a relevant aspect while construin g the service rule. The aforementioned judgment distinguished itsel f from D. Stephen Joseph (supra) case on the ground that th e interpretation of the rules would be determined on a case-to-cas e basis, and the wordings of the rules as well as past practices ar e important criteria. Similarly, in the present case, the Electricit y Department has a past practice of considering the years of servic e prior to the acquisition of the degree .

¶79

24. The principle of past practice being of significance has also bee n noticed in M.B. Joshi (supra) case. This judgment also discusses th e aspect where there are two channels for promotion (as in th e present case) and illustrates that if the total time period of servic e was not to be counted, then there could not be said to be an y incentive to acquire the higher degree except as an academi c pursuit. The incentive is that if you acquire a higher degree a s compared to a diploma, you come into a channel which entitle s consideration, albeit on merit, in a fast lane with less number o f years of service required in the cadre .

¶80

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶81

12

¶82

CW P -2832-2022 and others connect e d matters

¶83

25. In our view, one of the important aspects is the wording of th e Rule itself. According to the Rules, 50 percent of the promotio n quota is from Junior Engineers with three years of regular servic e in the grade "and" possessing a degree in Electrical Engineering . The Rule does not say from which date the time period of regula r service has to be counted, but there is a twin requirement of thre e years of regular service as also a degree. As against this, the secon d scheme of 50 percent promotion from Junior Engineers uses th e word "with" seven years of regular service in the grade an d possessing a diploma in Electrical Engineering. Thus, th e distinction is between the diploma holder and the degree holder an d the period of service rendered as a Junior Engineer without an y distinction between the years served prior to or after havin g obtained the degree. Accepting the plea of the Appellant wou l d amo u nt to insertion into the requir e ment of the Rules, which is n o t stipu l ated. Further, this is how the R ule has been understood by t h e Dep a rtment, the framers of the Rules , and accordingly, the Rules ha v e been uniformly implemented in th e Electricity Department over a peri o d of time. In view of the above, due weightage must be given t o the v i ew of the framers of the Rules. ” (Emphasis supplied)

¶84

15. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2784 o f 2015, title d as ‘ Jai Prakash Sharma and Ors. v. Chief Commissioner o f Income Tax, Haryana and Ors .’ (decide d on 01.10.2015), ruled in favo u r of the petit i oners in that case, holding that it is not necessary to acquire t h e prescribed e xperience only after obtaining t he educational qualification. T h e Bench plac e d reliance on the judgments of t he Hon’ble Supreme Court in D . Stephen Joseph (supra) , M.B. Joshi (supra) , Anil Kumar Gupta (supra) , and A.K. Raghumani Singh & Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors., (2000 ) 4 SCC 30 . Importantly, the Court disting u ished the facts of that case fro m those in K.K. Dixit Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board (2015) 1 SCC 474 ,

¶85

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶86

13

¶87

CW P -2832-2022 and others connect e d matters

¶88

observing t hat the issue before it did not concern any dispute inter se t h e Diploma h o lders and Degree holders. Rele v ant paragraphs of the judgeme n t of the Divi s ion Bench are reproduced as un d er:

¶89

“ Very recently, the same issue again came up before the Ape x Court in K.K.Dixit Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board & other s 2014 (4) SCT 219 wherein the promotions were to the posts o f r Project Engineer (Senior) from amongst the Project Enginee (Juniors) who were Diploma holders with 7 years tota l experience of service. The dispute was again between Diploma holders and the Degree holders. Accordingly, it wa s held that the qualifications of AIME and the experience o f service had to be post the acquisition of the degree. In th e present case, as noticed, the issue is not of any dispute inter s e the Diploma holders and Degree holders. The Rules provi d e that a person has to be a gra d uate in Civil Engineering and h e must have the experience of w orking either under Governmen t, private employment or on the a cademic side. In the alternativ e , the experience as a Consulti n g Engineer, Valuer of not le s s than 10 years, has been ma d e mandatory, subject to certa i n conditions.

¶90

The observations made by the Apex Court in the case o f A.K.Raghumani Singh (supra) and Anil Kumar Gupt a (supra) would squarely apply and the respondents were no t justified in reading the qualification into the conjective wor d and implying that experience had to be subsequent to th e acquisition of the degree .

¶91

In such circumstances, the question of law is answered in favour of the writ petitioners that it is not necessary to gai n the experience under the Rules, after the acquisition of th e educational qualifications a n d accordingly, the order dat e d 31.12.2014 (Annexure P11), i s quashed and the writ petition i s allowed…”

¶92

(Emphasis supplie d )

¶93

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶94

14

¶95

CW P -2832-2022 and others connect e d matters

¶96

16. This Court is of the considere d opinion that the present case i s squarely c o vered by the judgments of th e Hon’ble Supreme Court in D . Stephen Joseph (supra) , M.B. Joshi (supra) , and Anil Kumar Gupt a (supra) . A s emphasized by the Hon’ble A pex Court, the principle of pa s t practice assumes significance in construing service rules. Regulation 9 of t h e 1965 Regu l ations provided that 18% of th e posts of Assistant Engineer a r e reserved f o r Engineering Subordinates p o ssessing AMIE/BE qualificati o n with 5 year s of service ‘ as JE/Civil ’ . Prior t o the correction/clarification, t h e consistent p ractice of the respondent-Nig a m since 2006 was to draw n o distinction between service rendered be f ore or after acquisition of t h e AMIE/Deg r ee. It was in this manner that t h e regulation was understood a n d applied, an d on that basis, the petitioners w ere promoted. Thus, even if t h e use of the words ‘ as JE/Civil ’ instead o f ‘ as such ’ was the result of a n ‘inadverten t error’, it is not disputed t hat the respondent-Nigam h a s considered service rendered before the acquisition of AMIE/degree a s qualifying s ervice for promotion under the 1 8% quota.

¶97

17. As noted earlier, the Hon’ble A pex Court in M.B. Joshi (supra ) n emphasize d that it is a well-settled principl e of service jurisprudence that, i the absenc e of any specific rule, seniorit y among persons holding simil a r posts in the same cadre must be determine d on the basis of length of servi c e and not on any other fortuitous circumstan c e. Therefore, this Court is of t h e considered view that the principles laid do w n in D. Stephen Joseph (supra) ,

¶98

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶99

15

¶100

CW P -2832-2022 and others connect e d matters

¶101

M.B. Joshi (supra) , and Anil Kumar Gupta (supra) squarely govern t h e issue at ha n d.

¶102

18. Furthermore, with regards to the retrospective applicability o f the correct i on/clarification, a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supre m e Court, in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and Others v. Dr . Manu and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 640 , speaking through Justi c e B.V. Nagarathna, has held as follows:

¶103

“ 38. F rom the aforesaid authorities, the following principles could b e culle d out:

¶104

i ) If a statute is curative or merely clarificatory of the previou s l aw, retrospective operation thereof may be permitted .

¶105

ii ) In order for a subsequent order/provision/amendment to b e c onsidered as clarificatory of the previous law, the pre-amende d l aw ought to have been vague or ambiguous. It is only when i t would be impossible to reasonably interpret a provision unles s a n amendment is read into it, that the amendment is considere d t o be a clarification or a declaration of the previous law an d t herefore applied retrospectively.

¶106

ii i) An explanation/clarification may not expand or alter th e s cope of the original provision .

¶107

i v ) Merely because a provision is described as a c larification/explanation, the Court is not bound by the sai d s tatement in the statute itself, but must proceed to analyse th e n ature of the amendment and then conclude whether it is i n r eality a clarificatory or declaratory provision or whether it is a s ubstantive amendment which is intended to change the law an d which would apply prospectively .

¶108

39. Applying the law as discussed hereinabove to the facts of th e present case, we are of the view that the subsequent Governmen t

¶109

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶110

16

¶111

CW P -2832-2022 and others connect e d matters

¶112

Order dated 29-3-2001 cannot be declared as a clarification an d therefore be made applicable retrospectively. The said order ha s substantively modified the Government Order dated 21-12-1999 t o the extent of stating that teachers who had already got the benefit o f advance increments for having a PhD degree, would not be eligibl e for advance increments at the time of their placement in th e selection grade. As noted above, the law provides that a clarificatio n must not have the effect of saddling any party with an unanticipate d burden or withdrawing from any party an anticipated benefi t. How e ver, the Government Order d a ted 29-3-2001 has restricted t h e eligi b ility of Lecturers for adva n ce increments at the time o f plac e ment in the selection grade, only to those who do not have a PhD degree at the time of recruitm e nt and subsequently acquire t h e sam e .

¶113

xx xx xx

¶114

42. Further, merely because the subsequent Government Order ha s been described as a clarification/explanation or is said to have bee n issued following a clarification that was sought in that regard, th e Court is not bound to accept that the said order is only clarificator y in nature. On an analysis of the true nature and purport of th e subsequent Government Order dated 29-3-2001, we are of the view that it is not merely clarificatory, but is a substantial amendmen t which seeks to withdraw the benefit of two advance increments i n favour of a certain category of Lecturers. The benefit withdrawn was not anticipated under the previously existing scheme . Therefore, such an amendment cannot be given retrospectiv e effect. ” (Emphasis supplied)

¶115

19. The aforementioned observat i ons were recently upheld by a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. Vincent Velankann i v. Union of India 2024 SCC Online SC 2642 wherein the Court speaki n g through Justice Sandeep Mehta has held as follows:

¶116

“ 43. If a Government Order is treated to be in the nature of a clarification of an earlier Government Order, it may be mad e

¶117

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶118

17

¶119

CW P -2832-2022 and others connect e d matters

¶120

applicable retrospectively. Conversely, if a subsequent Governmen t Order is held to be a modification/amendment of the earlie r Government Order, its application would be prospective a s retrospective application thereof would result in withdrawal o f vested rights which is impermissible in law and the same may als o entail recoveries to be made. The principles in this regard we r e culle d out by this Court in a recent j udgment of Sree Sankarachar y a Univ e rsity of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu in the following terms...

¶121

xx xx xx

¶122

44. Applying these principles to the case at hand, we are of the view that the subsequent GO dated 4th August, 2015 cannot be rea d simply as a clarification and therefore cannot be made applicabl e retrospectively. The said GO has substantively modified the positio n governing seniority in the Industrial Establishments by reviving th e earlier OM dated 4th November, 1992, and supersedes th e orders/circulars dated 24th December, 2002 and 13th January , 2003, which were holding the field over more than a decade . Therefore, giving retrospective effect to the GO dated 4th Augus t, 2015 would have catastrophic effect on the seniority of the entir e cadre . ”

¶123

(Emphasis supplie d ) 20. In the present case, there was neither ambiguity nor vaguenes s in the pre - amended Regulation 9, and i t cannot be contended that t h e provision w as incapable of reasonable inte r pretation without the subseque n t correction/ c larification. As noted earlier, prior to its insertion, t h e respondent - corporation made no distinctio n between service rendered befo r e or after ac q uisition of the AMIE/Degree. The regulation was consistent l y understood and applied in this manner, a n d on that basis, the petitione r s were prom o ted to the post of Assistant E n gineer. The so-called correcti o n has, in effect, substantively altered the sc o pe of the original Regulation b y

¶124

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶125

18

¶126

CW P -2832-2022 and others connect e d matters

¶127

mandating t hat the requisite five years of s e rvice for promotion be reckon e d only from t he date of acquisition of the A M IE/degree, rather than from t h e date of ini t ial appointment. The Hon’ble S upreme Court has categorical l y held that a clarification cannot impose an unanticipated burden or depri v e any party o f an anticipated benefit.

¶128

21. Furthermore, the insertion o f the ‘correction’ has effective l y resulted in withdrawal of the vested rig h ts of the petitioners. The me r e description of a provision as a ‘correction’ or ‘clarification’ does not bi n d the Court. I t is incumbent upon the Court t o examine the true nature of t h e amendmen t and determine whether it is genuinely clarificatory o r declaratory , or whether it is in fact a su b stantive amendment altering t h e law, whic h can only operate prospective l y. Accordingly, in view of t h e above, this Court holds that the so-called correction in Regulation 9 is, i n substance, a substantive amendment and ca n not be applied retrospectively t o recast the s e niority of the petitioners.

¶129

CONCLUSION

¶130

22. In view of the foregoing discu s sions, the present writ petition( s ) are allowe d . The Final Ranking List date d 14.01.2022 (Annexure P-11) o f JE/Civil u n der the 18% Degree Holders Promotion Quota hereby stan d s quashed in s ofar as it retrospectively recas t s the seniority of the petitioner s . While the Respondent-Nigam has the c o mpetence to amend its servi c e regulations , the amendment to Regulat i on 9 vide office order dat e d

¶131

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶132

19

¶133

CW P -2832-2022 and others connect e d matters

¶134

30.06.2021 (Annexure P-7) shall op e rate only prospectively. T h e Responden t s are directed to determine t h e seniority of the petitioner( s ) accordingl y and are further restrained fr om reverting them from the i r existing pr o moted posts.

¶135

23. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall sta n d disposed o f .

¶136

24. Photocopy of this order be pl a ced on the files of the connect e d

¶137

cases.

¶138

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

¶139

October 15, 2025 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No

¶140

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Raj Kumar and Anr. v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar and Anr. v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mandhir Singh etc. Vs State of Pb.Etc

Paramjit Ram Vs State of Pb.Etc.

Pradip Kumar Gupta Vs Haryana State Warehousing Corporation and Anr.

Sangat Ram and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jai Kishan Mittal Vs Hafed and Another