Chander Bha vs VERSUS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA E HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. R.S. Sohi, Advocate for 7528- for the petitioners in CWP-37528 2025 and 31231-2025. Mr. Parveen K. Saini with Mr.Budhadev Maity, Advocate Nos.15849, 29326, 30027 & 378 with Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj and j and CWP vocates for the petitioners in CWP & 37868 of 2025. Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab unjab-State. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 326-2025 and connected matters 3 Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Sr. Advoca Mr. Anirudh Malhan and Ms. respondent No.5-PSTCL in CWP dvocate with Mr. Abhishek Sharma, arma, te for Ms. Navdita Rathore, Advocate for n CWP-29326 & 15849 of 2025. Mr. Sapandhir, Advocate for re 2025. 7528- for respondent No.4 in CWP-37528 Mr. Hridyavans S. Randhawa wi Mr. R.P.S. Bara, Advocate for re ia and awa with Mr. Opinderpal S. Walia and for respondent-PSPCL. Mr. Jastej, Advocate for respond

025. spondent No.4 in CWP-29326-2025. Mr. Vansh Malhotra, Advocate 15849-2025. CWP- ocate for respondent No.4 in CWP CL in cate for respondent No.4-PSPCL in Ms. Kavita Joshi, Advocate h V.C) CWP-31231-2025 (through V.C) Ms. Priyanka Malik, Advocate 30027-2025. CWP- ocate for respondent No.4 in CWP Mr. Anurag Mor, Advocate for M respondent No.4 in CWP-37868 ate for e for Ms. Palika Monga, Advocate for 37868-2025. HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) CM-15470- 2025 -CWP-2025 in CWP-29326-2025 The present application has be 51 of has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for pla or placing on record the instruction uctions dated 03.10.2025 (Annexure P-37) for pro or proper adjudication of the present c sent case. In view of the grounds mentione ame is tioned in the application, the same is allowed as p d as prayed for. Annexure P-37 is o ecord. 7 is ordered to be taken on record. Registry is di ry is directed to place the same at an ap t an appropriate place. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 326-2025 and connected matters 4 MAIN

1. This order shall dispose of the titions f the above-mentioned writ petitions as they arise arise from a similar factual matrix. H revity, trix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are t

025. ts are taken from CWP-29326-2025.

2. The petitioners have approached resent oached this Court by filing the present writ petition tition under Articles 226 of the Consti Constitution of India on the following prayers:- <a) Praying for issuan e of suance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the 020 he instructions dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure P-6) and letter date 18) dated 11.06.2021 (Annexure P-18) and letter dated 21.09.2021 021 (Annexure P-20) issued by respondent No.2 and order date 17) dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure P-17) and order dated 22.04.2025 025 (Annexure P-34) issued by respondent No.5 and circular d e P- lar dated 17.08.2022 (Annexure P 19) issued by respondent No.4 q o.4 qua the petitioners whereby the petitioners have been grant 900 ranted pay scale of Rs.19900 Consolidated (on the basis of s of Grade Pay of 1900) as per Central Pay Commission instea stead of Punjab Pay Scale/Pattern i.e. 10900-34800 with Grade Pa e Pay 3400, which has been granted to the ALMs and ASSAs w s who were appointed prior to

17.07.2020. b) Further praying fo n 2 g for quashing the Regulation 2 Sub-Rule 2(b) of the Punjab Sta b State Power Corporation Limited (Revised Pay) Regulations, ns, 2021 (Annexure P-8, dated

17.11.2021) whereby the above ove said regulations have not been PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 326-2025 and connected matters 5 made applicable to the petit petitioners or PSPCL employees recruited on or after 17.07.2020 020 which is against the trite law. c) Further praying f ng for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing t ing the respondents to grant the pay scale to the petitioner/ASSAs/A As/ALMs and ALMs as per Punjab Pay Scales/Regulation i.e. 1090 400 10900-34800 with Grade Pay 3400 which has been granted to A to ALMs and ASSAs, who were appointed prior to 17.07.202 .2020 and also granted all the allowance, including dearness ess allowances, during the 3 years of probation also and also trea treat such probation period towards permanent service for all intents tents and purposes. d) Further praying fo ts to g for directing the respondents to take into account the statutory 800 tory pay scale of Rs.10900-34800 Grade Pay Rs.3400/- with furthe urther pay revisions from the date o te of their direct appointment along w 12% ng with arrears and interest at 12% per annum thereon keeping i ng in view the fact that similar question of law has already bee been decided by this Court as well as Division Bench of this Cour 9ble ourt and upto the level of Hon9ble Supreme Court. e) Further praying fo ts to g for directing the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs.3540 Pay 35400 (level 6 of Central Pay Commission as per Pay Grade ade of Rs.3400 Grade Pay) instead of Rs.19900/- (as per Pay Grad Grade 1900) due to the reason that the persons appointed on the po r to e posts of ALMs and ASSAs prior to issuance of instruction dated ted 17.07.2020 were getting pay grade of Rs.3400 as per revised ised pay scale.=

3. Short reply on behalf of respond 2025, espondent No.4 in CWP-37528-2025, reply by way y way of affidavit on behalf of respon 2025 respondent No.4 in CWP-29326-2025 PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 326-2025 and connected matters 6 and reply on ply on behalf of respondent No.4 in in the o.4 in CWP-31231-2025 filed in the Court today d today during the course of hearing, wh en on ing, which are ordered to be taken on record. Regis . Registry is directed to place the same same at an appropriate place.

4. Learned counsel for the petition at the etitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners ar ers are working on the posts of As ) and of Assistant Line Man (ALM) and Assistant Sub nt Sub Station Attendants (ASSA) i ration. SA) in the respondents-Corporation. The primary imary grievance of the petitioners is r ion of ers is regarding arbitrary reduction of the pay-scale scale of the petitioners from 109 ay of 10900-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.3400/- to to Rs.19,900/- (consolidated) on th ay i.e. ) on the basis of lower grade pay i.e. Rs.1900/-. T . The statutory pay-scale of the e dents- f the employees of the respondents Corporation ation are governed by the Punjab Sta hnical jab State Electricity Board Technical Grade-III Ser III Service Rules 1996, as is discern . The iscernible from Annexure P-10. The pay-scales we ales were revised in the year 2009 whe f 2009 9 when the revised pay-scale of 2009 were implem mplemented. In the meantime, the issued , the Government of Punjab issued instructions d tions dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure P re P-6) to implement 7th Central Pay al Pay Commission ission Pay Matrix which was initial ndent- initially adopted by the respondent Corporation w ation without amending or repealing t er, on aling the statutory rules, however, on

22.04.2025 in 025 in fact the rules governing the pa nly on the pay scales were amended only on

22.04.2025 025 (Annexure P-34) on the bas e basis of the instructions dated

17.07.2020 is 020 issued by the Government of Pun of Punjab. The petitioners challenged the revision o ision of the Rules to the extent that th that they have been made applicable retrospectivel ectively. Further the amendment de cribed de hors the procedure prescribed under Section Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Suppl nable. (Supply) Act 1948 is not sustainable. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 326-2025 and connected matters 7 The responde spondent-Corporation cannot implem ed out plement the amendment carried out on 22.04.202

4.2025 (Annexure P-34) without follo ut following the drill of the procedure prescribed u bed under Section 79(c) the Ele

1948. e Electricity (Supply) Act 1948. Admittedly, edly, the petitioners were appointed s and inted in the year 2022 onwards and initially they y they were paid the pay scale in Rules ale in terms of the statutory Rules governing th ing the pay scale to the employees ap yees appointed prior to the impugned amendment w ment which was carried out on 22.04.2 such, 2.04.2025 (Annexure P-34). As such, their pay-sca scales are governed by the Pu Board the Punjab State Electricity Board Technical Se cal Services Grade-III Rules 1996 and Rules 96 and the Revised Pay Scales Rules

2009. These These Rules cannot be overridden by ght of en by defeating the accrued right of the petitioner itioners by carrying out the amendmen t. The ndment with retrospective effect. The impugned ac ned action of the respondents-Corpor ght of orporation by defeating the right of petitioner for er for equal pay for equal work and inated rk and they are being discriminated only on the b n the basis of the date of appointmen ntment. The aforesaid issue has been considered by ered by this Court in CWP-7877-2024 led as 2024 and connected cases, titled as Amandeep S ep Singh and others Versus Pun Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and and others, decided on 17.09.2025 so the .2025 (Annexure P-36) and also the judgment ren nt rendered by this Court in CWP CWP-28550-2025, titled as Lakhvir Singh and nd others Versus State of Pun d on Punjab and others, decided on

025. 23.09.2025.

5. Per contra, learned counsel f ration nsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that s that the notification dated 17.07.20 ed by .07.2020 (Annexure P-6) passed by Government ment of Punjab has been adopted b ration. pted by the respondent-Corporation. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 326-2025 and connected matters 8 Further the p r the petitioners cannot claim parity w arity with pay scale with those who were appoint ppointed prior to the appointment of p nt of petitioners. The petitioners were never promis promised or offered the higher pay- e well -scales, the petitioners were well aware of the of the fact that they will be paid conso y had consolidated pay for which they had participated i ated in the selection process. Further issued urther the appointment letters issued to the respec respective petitioners is self explanat f, the planatory and Clause-IV thereof, the emoluments ents of the appointees have been cle ms of en clearly set up. Further in terms of the notificatio tification 17.07.2020 (Annexure P-6) n has 6) the respondent-Corporation has not only ad ly adopted the same but has also nt on s also carried out amendment on

22.04.2025 (A 025 (Annexure P-34). The Board of t rd of the Directors in its 70th Meeting eeting has adopted dopted the instructions dated 17.0 t the 17.07.2020 and carried out the amendment i ment in terms of the instructions (Ann scale. s (Annexure P-6) regarding pay scale. As such pray h prays for dismissal of the writ petitio petitions.

6. I have heard the learned coun d counsel for the parties and gone through the c h the case file with their able assistan entire ssistance. It transpires that the entire argument of nt of the petitioner hinges upon the .2020 on the instructions dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure P ure P-6) adopting the 7th Central Pa or the tral Pay Commission Matrix for the employees of ees of the respondent-Corporation. Th ct that ion. There is no denial to the fact that the petitione titioners were appointed in the yea to the e year 2022, as such, prior to the amendment, ment, and the pay fixation of the em y the the employees were governed by the statutory rule ry rules as it existed at time of their ap ly the eir appointment. Incontrovertibly the amendment w ment was carried out in terms of th in the of the aforesaid instructions in the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 326-2025 and connected matters 9 Punjab State State Electricity Board Technical Serv 6 only al Services Grade-III Rules 1996 only on 22.04.202

4.2025 (Annexure P-34).

7. The question regarding retrospe ent is trospective effect of an amendment is no longer res ger res integra. A Two Judge Bench of urt in nch of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in V. Vincent V nt Velankanni vs. Union of India Line dia and Others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2642 wh while speaking through Justice ed as stice Sandeep Mehta observed as under:- <43. I clarific applica Order Govern retrosp vested entail culled Univer

3. If a Government Order is trea arification of an earlier Governm plicable retrospectively. Conversely rder is held to be a modificatio overnment Order, its application trospective application thereof wo sted rights which is impermissible tail recoveries to be made. The p lled out by this Court in a recent ju niversity of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu 35 treated to be in the nature of a of a ernment Order, it may be made rsely, if a subsequent Government ication/amendment of the earlier ation would be prospective as l of f would result in withdrawal of ible in law and the same may also he principles in this regard were nt judgment of Sree Sankaracharya 35, in the following terms:4 <52. From the aforesaid autho uthorities, the following principles could be culled out:- i) If a statute is curative previous law, retrospect permitted. ive or merely clarificatory of the pective operation thereof may be ii)In order for a subsequent be considered as clarific pre-amended law ough ambiguous. It is only w reasonably interpret a pr read into it, that the am clarification or a declar therefore applied retrospe iii) An explanation/clarificat scope of the original prov iv) Merely because a p clarification/explanation, said statement in the sta analyse the nature of the t to uent order/provision/amendment to rificatory of the previous law, the to have been vague or e to y when it would be impossible to a provision unless an amendment is nt is amendment is considered to be a be a claration of the previous law and ospectively. fication may not expand or alter the provision. is described as a s a a provision tion, the Court is not bound by the d to statute itself, but must proceed to f the amendment and then conclude PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 326-2025 and connected matters 10 whether it is in reality provision or whether it which is intended to cha apply prospectively.= lity a clarificatory or declaratory r it is a substantive amendment change the law and which would

8. Further, a Two Judge Bench of t Sree ch of the Hon9ble Apex Court in Sree Sankarachar charya University of Sanskrit v. M v. Manu, (2023) 19 SCC 30 while speaking thro g through Justice. B.V. Nagarathna ob thna observed as under :

38.4. Merely because a pr clarification/explanation, the C statement in the statute itself, b nature of the amendment and reality a clarificatory or declar a substantive amendment which and which would apply prospect is described as a s a provision e Court is not bound by the said lf, but must proceed to analyse the and then conclude whether it is in is in claratory provision or whether it is it is hich is intended to change the law spectively.

9. Reliance in this regard may ay be placed on the judgements rendered by t ed by the Hon9ble Supreme Court in U Union of India v. Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd s Ltd., (2009) 12 SCC 209 and Hiten te of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra shtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602.

10. Admittedly the right of the peti ing to e petitioners to be paid according to the statutory atutory rules prevailing at the tim t had e time of their appointment had crystallized u lized upon their appointment.

11. The aforementioned position of ed by ion of law has also been approved by a Full Benc Bench of this Court in Kaka v. CR v. Hassan Bano, 1998(1) RCR (Criminal) 4 al) 484. Speaking through Justice S tice Swatanter Kumar, the following was held: <28. princip taken a there i

8. &This rule is however, inciple that the benefits acquired un ken away by an amendment with ret ere is no power to make such a rule ver, subject to a well recognised d under the existing rules cannot be t be say, h retrospective effect, that is to say, 309 rule under the proviso to Article 309 PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 326-2025 and connected matters 11 specifi their p down q necess : State 1973 S SCR 1 Raman Court 1984 L ich affects or impairs vested ri ecifically provided in the rules, th omoted before the amendment of th eir promotions cannot be recalled. In wn qualifications for promotion mad cessarily satisfy the test of Articles 1 State of Mysore v. M.N. Krishna M 73 Supreme Court 1146, B.S. Yada R 1024 : AIR 1981 Supreme Co manlal Keshavlal Soni, (1983) 2 S urt 161 and KC Arora v. State of 84 Lab. IC 1015.= t is d rights. Therefore, unless it is s, the employees who are already of the rules cannot be reverted and d. In other words, such rules laying made with retrospective effect must les 14 and 16(1) of the constitution AIR a Murty, (1973) 2 SCR 575 : AIR Yadav v. State of Punjab, (1981) 1 1) 1 t v. e Court 561, State of Gujarat v. ) 2 SCR 287 : AIR 1984 Supreme 623: te of Haryana, (1984) 3 SCR 623:

12. Reference in this regard may a may also be placed on a judgement rendered by a ed by another Full Bench of this Court te of Court in Parshotam Dass v. State of Haryana 200 2003 (4) RCR (Civil) 73.

13. In the present case, the amendm .2025 mendment carried out on 22.04.2025 (Annexure P ure P-34) cannot be applied retrospe of the trospectively to the detriment of the petitioners. T ers. The petitioners were appointed in inted in 2022, at which time their pay was governe overned by the existing Punjab Stat hnical b State Electricity Board Technical Services Gra es Grade-III Rules 1996 and the Re

2009. he Revised Pay Scales Rules 2009. Their right t right to be paid according to those s llized those statutory rules had crystallized upon their ap eir appointment. The subsequent ame eks to amendment in 2025, which seeks to revise the pay the pay scale downwards based on the .2020, on the instructions dated 17.07.2020, is not merely merely clarificatory but a substantive ure. It antive change to the pay structure. It alters the sco he scope of the original rules and adv rights nd adversely affects the vested rights of employees loyees who were already appointed. inted. Such a substantive amendment PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 326-2025 and connected matters 12 can only hav ly have prospective effect and cannot cannot be used to defeat the accrued rights of the p f the petitioners who were appointed p inted prior to the amendment.

14. Consequently, all the present w . The nt writ petition(s) are allowed. The respondent/C dent/Corporation is directed to fix the ctly in ix the pay of the petitioners strictly in terms of the a f the applicable Rules as on the date o elease date of their appointment and release the conseque sequential benefits including arrears w rears within a period of three months from date of ate of receipt of certified copy of this o f this order.

15. Registry is directed to place a n the ace a photocopy of this order on the paper-books ooks of the connected matters. RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE February 10 P.C ary 10, 2025 Whether speaking/r Whether Reportable king/reasoned. : Yes/No Yes/No ortable. : PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document