Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Umesh Chandra Tripathi vs Bsnl on 28 August, 2025
O.A. No.330/1037 of 2024
(Reserved on 21.08.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on 28th day of August, 2025
Original Application No.1037 of 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
PUNIT
KUMAR
1. Umesh Chandra Tripathi, aged about 61 yrs. S/o Late
MISHRA
K.K.Tripathi, 62, Babaji Ka bagh, Colonelganj, Allahabad.-
211003
2. Ashok Pandey, aged about 63 yrs. S/o Late S.P. Pandey,
35/4/A/1, Stanley Road, SDE[Civil], BSNL Civil Sub Division,
Faizabad.
3. Basant Singh, aged 61 yrs. S/o Sri Ram Lal Singh, R/o 194,
Tularambagh, Allahabad.
4. Ashok Kumar aged about 62 yrs. S/o Late S.N.Lal R/o 87/83,
New Mumfordganj, Allahabad.
5. Raj Narayan Yadav aged about 63 yrs S/o Late R.K.Yadav SH
3/16, A-2, R-5, Navanpur, Basai Varanasi
6. R.P. Singh aged about 62 yrs. S/o Late Arjun Singh Village-
Adalhat, Ahraura, Chunar District- Mirzapur
7. Siya Ram aged about 62 yrs S/o Sri Raja ram R/o flat No.104,
Kalptaru Apartment, New Colony, DLW Kakarmatta, District-
Varanasi.
8. Alok Kumar Sonwani, aged about 61 yrs S/o Late Gulab Chand,
R/o 194, Tularambagh, Allahabad.
....Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Shri D.k. Srivastava
VERSUS
1. The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Communication,
Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka Marg, New Delhi
2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi
3. Principal General Manager (BW), Bharat Sanchar nigam Ltd.,
New Delhi
Page 1 of 15
O.A. No.330/1037 of 2024
4. The Chief General Manager, Telecom, UP East Circle, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Lucknow
5. The Chief Engineer Civil, UP East Civil Zone, BSNL, Lucknow
... Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Anil Kumar
ORDER
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, assisted by Shri D.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing.
2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:
(i) This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 22.12.2018 issued by the respondent-5.
(ii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be please to direct the respondents to relase the subsequent financial upgradation along with consequential service benefits like arrears of pay and allowance etc. due to applicant after the order dated 09.09.2015.
(iii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 05.02.2019 passed by respondent-5 to reduce the pay scale of the applicant.
(iv) To pass such other orders which are found just fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
3. The brief facts as stated by the applicant in the Original Application is that the applicants were initially appointed on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in erstwhile Department of Telecommunication between the year 1978 to 1980 through the Recruitment made by Department of Telecommunication vide Recruitment Rules, 1976, wherein it was specially mentioned that for promotion from J.E (Civil) to A.E(Civil), who have passed the departmental examination and have rendered not less than 8 years of regular service. All the applicants had passed the required examination in time but not given promotion on Page 2 of 15 O.A. No.330/1037 of 2024 completion of 8 years of service. Thereafter, said Department was bifurcated into Department of Telecom & Department of Postal and for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) education qualification was Diploma in Civil stream in the Recruitment Rules. The applicants were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (AE) Civil in the violating the Recruitment Rules, 1976 (i.e not after rendering 8 years of service) but PUNIT KUMAR they were promoted after rendering more than 17 years of service. MISHRA 3.1 The Government of India introduced Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) on 9th August, 1999 to give next higher scale of the hierarchy to the employee as first ACP on completion of 12 years of regular service in a scale and 2nd on completion of 24th of regular service and if any promotion is granted to them, within 12 years of service then 2nd ACP directly on completion of 24 years of service in the next higher scale of their hierarchy. The hierarchy of applicants is Junior Engineer (Civil) to Assistant Engineer (Civil) to Executive Engineer (Civil) to Superintending Engineer (Civil) etc. Accordingly, the applicants have granted 2nd ACP benefits after completion of 24 years of service vide order dated 09.09.2015.
3.2 The Government of India created Enterprise namely Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) in addition to already existing enterprises namely Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as BSNL/MTNL) w.e.f. 01.10.2000. The process for absorption and notification etc. started in the year 2001-02. The DOT invited options from its employees willing to be absorbed in these Nigams on certain Terms and Conditions. The applicants submitted their option for absorption in BSNL and accordingly they have been absorbed in the BSNL w.e.f. 01-10-2000 by issue of Presidential Order by Department of Telecom (DOT). The BSNL has notified the "BSNL Page 3 of 15 O.A. No.330/1037 of 2024 Executive Promotion Policy (EPP) dated 18th January, 2007" with the procedure and conditions prescribed for promotion/ financial upgradation. The para 2 of EPP says that first review under the policy will be with the reference to 1st October, 2004. The Department of Telecommunications granted the ACP to the Assistant Engineer (Civil) possessing Diploma qualification and having more than 10 years of PUNIT KUMAR service (treating it equivalent to Degree), vide order dated 01.09.2003 MISHRA and dated 20.2.2004 in the grade of Executive Engineer (Civil) but some seniors and juniors have been deprived from the benefit of 2nd ACP due to the reasons best known to the respondents. 3.3 The applicants have no other option only to accept the Executive Promotion Policy, 2007 (EPP), but they have represented before the respondents that they have also completed 24 years of service before 01.10.2004 and are eligible for 2nd ACP., therefore, the benefits of 2nd ACP should also be granted to them inconformity of rules and guidelines under which other executives have been give vide order dated 01.9.2003 and 20.2.2004. On receipts of representations from the various units of DOT/BSNL, DGM(BW-I), BSNL Corporate Office, BW Unit issued a letter No.PF/Digamber Singh/AD(BW-I) dated 08.6.2009 to all PCE(Civil)/CE(Civil) clarifying therein as under:-
"Since the first review under Executive Upgradation Policy is to be made with reference to 01.10.2004, any upgradation due to the executive on or before 01.10.2004 based on earlier time bound policies, such upgradation will be granted to the executive on the basis of option as one time relaxation if he/she will for such promotion and adjudged fit in accordance with concerned regularity conditions".
The ACP Scheme under the erstwhile DOT scheme also falls under the category of earlier time bound policies. Thus, an executive can opt for ACP Scheme upto 01.10.2004 however, the ACP is to be provided under the erstwhile DOT Scheme. Accordingly, for grant of 2nd ACP in EE (C) grade DOT's & P&T Building Works Service Group 'A' RRs 1994 shall be applicable. Since, ACP cases are to be processed in the same manner as promotion to EE (Civil) grade is to be processed, therefore, all Page 4 of 15 O.A. No.330/1037 of 2024 the eligibility criteria are to be fulfilled while processing grant of 2nd ACP cases.
3.4 After issuance of clarification dated 08.06.2009, no action was taken by the concerned Principal Chief Chief Engineer (Civil). Thereafter, BSNL Corporate office (Personnel Section) dealing with the policy matters of Promotion/Recruitment etc. issued letters and reminders dated 20.5.2010, 20.12.2012 to the all CGMs stating the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA subject "extending the benefits of ACP on upgraded scale to the executive cadre of Civil/Architect/Electrical/Telecom Factory and CSS/CSSS etc. demanded the service details/ financial burden of left out executives for extending the benefit of ACP. Accordingly the details/ representations of AEs of U.P. East Civil Zone was forwarded to Personnel Section of BSNL Corporate office vide Chief Engineer (Civil) vide letter dated 12.7.2013. The BSNL Corporate Office (Personnel Section) after examining the service details/ representations and financial liabilities of all representations received from various circles, issued a letter dated 12th May, 2014 extending the benefits of ACP and authorizing the concerned CGMs to take further necessary action for grant of ACP.
3.5 The respondent- 5 in pursuance of BSNL Corporate Office letter dated 12.5.2014 processed the case of grant of 2nd ACP to the applicants and after getting approval from the competent authority issued the Order No.18(6)/2014/Admn/CEC/Lw/478 dated 09.09.2015 granting 2nd ACP to the applicants and also mentioned therein the dates of next due financial upgradation under EPP. However, after a lapse of about 3 years from the date of issue of grant of ACP vide order dated 09.09.2015 and retirement of all applicants, the respondent-5 issued an office order No.18 Page 5 of 15 O.A. No.330/1037 of 2024 (6)/2014/Admn/CEC/UPE/416 dated 17.05.2018 withdrawing the benefits of 2nd ACP granted earlier vide order dated 09.09.2015. 3.6 Aggrieved by the same, the applicants preferred an O.A. 543/2018 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.05.2018 and the matter was remitted back to the respondents to pass a fresh order after providing opportunity to the applicants. PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Subsequently, the respondent-5 in compliance of order dated 23.5.2018 issued a letter dated 20.9.2018 to the applicants, intimating therein that the applicants do not possess the requisite educational qualification i.e. B.E or equivalent in Civil Engineering, hence why should the ACP given vide order dated 09.9.2015 not be withdrawn. 3.7 In pursuance thereof, the applicants submitted their reply dated 25.09.2018 stating therein they are having Diploma in Civil Engineering with more than 10 years of technical experience which are equivalent to B.E. Degree in terms of Ministry of Education and Social Welfare (Deptt. Of Educational. Technical), New Delhi, therefore, they fulfilled the educational qualification and eligible for benefits of ACP. Their colleagues have been given the benefit of ACP possessing the same qualification. Thus, they are eligible for grant of ACP. 3.8 The respondent-5 vide letter No.32(4) / 2018 / Admn /CEC /UPE/A.K. Pandey and Others/822 dated 22.12.2018 informed that the claim of the applicant for possessing requisite educational qualification is not acceptable and they do not possess the requisite qualification and therefore, the 2nd ACP granted to them vide letter dated 09.09.2015 is hereby withdrawn. Consequently, an order was passed by the respondent-5 to refix the pay scale of the applicants vide order dated 05.02.2019. Hence, this Original Application has been filed, challenging the orders dated 22.12.2018 and 05.02.2019. Page 6 of 15
O.A. No.330/1037 of 2024
4. On the other hand, counter reply was filed on 19.11.2024 wherein it has been stated that the applicants have been granted the benefit of 2nd ACP vide order/ letter dated 09.09.2015, having diploma in appropriate field of Engineering with 10 years experience, which are construed to be equivalent "To Degree in Engineering" in appropriate as per requirement of Note 2 under Schedule 1 B of BSNL MSRR PUNIT KUMAR 2009, which was specified to promotion to EE(C) grade with MISHRA prospective effect (Not for ACP), read with BSNL Corporate office letter dated 16.07.2015, which are based on the background of Ministry of Education & Social welfare OM No. F-18-19/75/T-2. Dated 26.05.1977 on the issue of equivalence of Diploma in engineering in appropriate disciplined plus total ten years of experience in the appropriate fields with a Degree in Engineering has been established, as per ratio decided in case of T.R. Sharama and others Vs. UOI, by the CAT Principal Bench and confirmed by the Delhi High court, vide order dated 05.08.2014.
4.1 However, CAT Chandigarh Bench at Chandigarh passed an order in OA No.343-PB-2013, vide its order dated 15.12.2015, by which, Ministry of Education & Social welfare OM No. F-18-19/75/T-2. Dated 26.05.1977, under the subject "Recognition of Technical and Professional qualifications", purportedly issued by the erstwhile Ministry of Education and Social welfare (Department of Education) has been declared fictitious and in pursuance of the same Ministry of Human resource development (Department of Higher Education) Notification New Delhi, 23rd March, 2016, F-No. 11/2015 TSA II/TC has notified the same and published in The Gazatte of India, New Delhi, Monday 9, 2016, Thus as the Ministry of Education & Social welfare OM No. F-18-19/75/T-2. Dated 26.05.1977 has been declared Page 7 of 15 O.A. No.330/1037 of 2024 fictitious, the applicants cannot get the benefit of equivalence in view of letter dated 26.05.1977 and benefit of other letters based on the same. 4.2 Para 4(a) of the letter dt.12.05.2014 (annexure A-14, page 78 of OA) states that "It must be carefully ascertained that such executives are eligible for ACP as per ACP guideline/clarification issued by DOPT from time to time and the Recruitment Rules PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA applicable in this regard, which has also been clarified vide BSNL Corporate Office letter ACP/M/BW/2012(Pt.) dt.17.01.018 stating that; "
on scrutiny of the report submitted to this office vide your letter dt.27.02.2017. It is observed that re-review committee has misunderstood the content of BSNL CO letter dt.12.05.2014. The Committee has failed to take into cognizance the applicable Recruitment Rules (i.e. RRs 1994) in this regard as required in Para 4(a) of the letter dt.12.05. 2014 and have extended the 2nd ACP benefit to Diploma holders whereas as per RR 1994 the educational qualification BE/ B. Tech/ Equivalent) was made as the eligibility condition for promotion in the grade of Executive Engineer (Civil). 4.3 Further, para I (d) (7) of the BSNL, Corporate office Letter dated 18.01.2007, also provides that on such promotion/upgradation the concerned staff may be adjudged fit in accordance with concerned regulatory condition (MSRR 2009). In view of the above change circumstances and facts and as the equivalence criteria as provided by the Ministry of Education & Social welfare OM No. F-18-19/75/T-2. Dated 26.05.1977, under the subject "Recognition of Technical and Professional qualifications has been declared fictitious by the Ministry, and same has been notified in the Gazette of India dated 23 March 2016, and BSNL has also clarified regarding the same, vide letter dated dt.17.01.20218, 16.07.2015, 18.01.2016, the applicants have no Page 8 of 15 O.A. No.330/1037 of 2024 requisite educational qualification and as such the impugned order has been correctly passed as per rules. Hence, instant original application is liable to be dismissed.
5. In reply, rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant on 10.01.2025, wherein reiterated the same averment as made in Original Application.
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA 6. Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, assisted by D.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the applicants are having Diploma in Civil Engineering with more than 10 years of technical experience which are equivalent to B.E. Degree in terms of Ministry of Education and Social Welfare (Deptt. Of Educational. Technical), New Delhi dated 26.05.1977 therefore, the applicants fulfill the educational qualification and eligible for benefits of ACP. The colleagues of the applicants have been given the benefit of ACP possessing the same qualification. The action of the respondent-5 is illegal, arbitrary and malafide and against the natural justice as they have given the post of the Executive Engineer (Civil) on look after basis to those SDE (C) (Diploma qualification) with the administrative and financial powers attached to the post vide order dated 06.2.2016 and further extended the period vide letter dated 23.8.2016. Further it is submitted that these ADEs(Civil) have also been given the benefit of 2nd ACP. The action of the respondent are against the judgment passed by Delhi High Court dated 05.08.2014 and Hon'ble Principal Bench CAT New Delhi dated 26.04.2013, by which the Diploma with ten years experience is equivalent to degree in Engineering based on the instruction of Government of India dated 26.05.1977.
Page 9 of 15
O.A. No.330/1037 of 2024 6.1 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicants having the eligibility condition prescribed under the RR- 1994 and letter dated 16.07.2015 are eligible for grant of 2nd ACP and subsequent financial upgradation due to them under EPP and as such, impugned orders are not tenable in the eyes of law. The order passed by the CAT Chandigarh bench in O.A. No.343/2013 has not considered PUNIT KUMAR the judgment of Delhi High Court as well as CAT Principal Bench and MISHRA as such, order of CAT Chandigarh Bench is not applicable in this case. The order was passed by CAT Chandigarh Bench on 15.12.2015 and based on the same, Gazette of India published on 23.03.2016, whereas the applicants were granted the benefits of 2nd ACP vide order 09.09.2015 and as such, same are not applicable with retrospective effect.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the applicants were granted the benefit of 2nd ACP vide order dated 09.09.2015, based on the interpretation that possession of a Diploma in the appropriate field of Engineering with 10 years of experience is to be treated as equivalent to a Degree in Engineering, in line with the provisions of Note 2 under Schedule 1B of the BSNL MSRR 2009. However, such equivalence was only specified for the purpose of prospective promotions and not for the grant of ACP. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in OA No. 343-PB-2013, vide its order dated 15.12.2015, held that the aforementioned OM dated 26.05.1977 is fictitious, and no such Office Memorandum exists as on date. In compliance with the above order, the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Higher Education) issued a Notification dated 23.03.2016, published in the Gazette of India, clearly stating that the said OM of 1977 is not a Page 10 of 15 O.A. No.330/1037 of 2024 genuine document and does not carry any legal or official validity. Accordingly, any benefit claimed by the applicants under the assumption of equivalence derived from the said OM cannot be sustained.
7.1 The BSNL Corporate Office, vide its letter dated 17.01.2018, has clarified that the Review Committee misunderstood PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA the contents of the letter dated 12.05.2014, and erroneously extended the 2nd ACP benefit to the applicants. The Committee failed to consider the applicable Recruitment Rules of 1994, which clearly stipulate that the minimum qualification for promotion to the grade of Executive Engineer (Civil) is BE/B.Tech or equivalent, and not merely a Diploma with experience. The applicants do not meet the requisite educational qualification as per these Rules. In view of the above, and taking into consideration the declared non-genuineness of the OM dated 26.05.1977, along with clarifications issued by the BSNL Corporate Office through various communications dated 16.07.2015, 18.01.2016, and 17.01.2018, the grant of 2nd ACP to the applicants was contrary to the applicable rules and policies, and the withdrawal/cancellation of such benefit is legally justified and in accordance with the law. Hence, instant Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have considered the submissions so raised by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
9. From perusal of the records, it appears that admittedly, the applicants were granted the benefit of the 2nd ACP vide order/letter dated 09.09.2015, having diploma in appropriate field of Engineering along with 10 years of experience, which is construed to be equivalent to a Degree in Engineering in the relevant discipline as the Ministry of Page 11 of 15 O.A. No.330/1037 of 2024 Education & Social Welfare OM No. F-18-19/75/T-2 dated 26.05.1977, establishing the equivalence of a Diploma in Engineering in the appropriate discipline plus ten years of experience with a Degree in Engineering.
10. The applicants are holding Diploma in Civil Engineering and have completed more than 10 years of experience in the relevant PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA field. As per the OM dated 26.05.1977, purportedly issued by the Ministry of Education & Social Welfare, such qualification and experience is to be treated as equivalent to a Degree in Engineering for the purpose of promotion. For better of appreciation of the matter, the same is quoted as under:-
On the recommendation of the Board of Assessment for Educational Qualifications and recommendation of defence director (Tech.), the Government of India have decided to recognize a Diploma in Engineering in appropriate discipline plus total ten years of technical experience in the appropriate fields in recognized as equivalent to Degree in Engineering. It is considered valid for the purpose of selection to Gazetted posts and services under the Central Government or State Government.
11. The Delhi High Court vide its judgment dated 05.08.2014 had already recognized the equivalence of Diploma with 10 years of experience to a Degree, based on the 1977 OM. The relevant part of the judgment is quoted as under:-
7. This Court is of the opinion that in the absence of any material contradicting the CAT's inference that the equivalence was applicable and held good, even as on date the UOI's contentions cannot be accepted. If indeed the UOI is right in contending that equivalence is a matter which has to be considered from service to service and having regard to the time there has to be some material apart from the bare assertion that the 26.05.1977 declaration of equivalence-which is wide and applicable to all posts and services under the Central Government is not correct.
In the absence of any such material, the UOI's contention in our opinion, was rightly rejected .AS far as the decision in Surliya (supra) was concerned, the CAT itself noticed that pwhile the 1994 recruitment Rules, which are in issue in the present case, were undoubtedly considered, the question of equivalence had not been discussed at all. Apparently, the 26.05.1977 circular was not brought to the notice of the Court at this stage. Page 12 of 15
O.A. No.330/1037 of 2024 Therefore, Surliya (supra) decision is not an authority on the ineligibility of those, like applicants /respondents, who were deemed to possess qualifications equivalent to a degree in engineering and therefore, entitled to second ACP benefits.
8. The last contention with regard to the applicability of the 2001 Office Memorandum, in our opinion, is rendered irrelevant in the light of the previous discussion with regard to the applicant's equivalence of degree qualifications. This Court is of the opinion that having regard to the object of the ACP Scheme i.e. to alleviate stagnation for long period and given that the equivalence criteria have been met, the insistence upon eligibility condition spell out in the recruitment rules would render the PUNIT KUMAR benefits under the Scheme illusory. At any rate, having regard to MISHRA the declaration of equivalence made by 26.05.1977 circular, which was applicable in the present case, it cannot be said that the respondents/applicants were ineligible for the second ACP.
12. Admittedly, the benefit of 2nd ACP was granted to the applicants vide order dated 09.09.2015, which is prior to the CAT Chandigarh order dated 15.12.2015 passed in OA No. 343-PB-2013, by which said OM dated 26.05.1977 was declared fictitious/unconstitutional and also the subsequent Notification dated 23.03.2016, published in the Gazette of India (New Delhi edition dated Monday, May 9, 2016). Therefore, the same cannot be applied retrospectively to withdraw or deny benefits already granted to the applicants, based on OM dated 26.05.1977. It is a trite law that any order/Gazette cannot have a retrospective effect unless and until there is an express provision to make its effect retrospective or that the operation thereof is retrospective by necessary implication.
13. The Apex Court in case of V. Vincent Velankanni Vs. The Union of India and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.8617/2013, has held as under:-
42. It is trite law that an Office Memorandum/Government Order cannot have a retrospective effect unless and until there is an express provision to make its effect retrospective or that the operation thereof is retrospective by necessary implication. In this regard, we are benefitted by the observations of this Court Page 13 of 15 O.A. No.330/1037 of 2024 in Sonia v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.34, wherein it was held that:
"11. ....In any view of the matter, law is well settled that an Office Memorandum cannot have a retrospective effect unless and until intention of the authorities to make it as such is revealed expressly or by necessary implication in the Office Memorandum."
43. If a Government Order is treated to be in the nature of a clarification of an earlier Government Order, it may be made applicable retrospectively. Conversely, if a subsequent Government Order is held to be a modification/amendment of the earlier Government Order, its application would be prospective PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA as retrospective application thereof would result in withdrawal of vested rights which is impermissible in law and the same may also entail recoveries to be made. The principles in this regard were culled out by this Court in a recent judgment of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu35, in the following terms:--
"52. From the aforesaid authorities, the following principles could be culled out:
i) If a statute is curative or merely clarificatory of the previous law, retrospective operation thereof may be permitted.
ii) In order for a subsequent order/provision/amendment to be considered as clarificatory of the previous law, the pre-
amended law ought to have been vague or ambiguous. It is only when it would be impossible to reasonably interpret a provision unless an amendment is read into it, that the amendment is considered to be a clarification or a declaration of the previous law and therefore applied retrospectively.
iii) An explanation/clarification may not expand or alter the scope of the original provision.
iv) Merely because a provision is described as a clarification/explanation, the Court is not bound by the said statement in the statute itself, but must proceed to analyse the nature of the amendment and then conclude whether it is in reality a clarificatory or declaratory provision or whether it is a substantive amendment which is intended to change the law and which would apply prospectively."
14. In view of above discussions, impugned orders dated 22.12.2018, by which the 2nd ACP granted to applicant vide letter dated 09.09.2015 was withdrawn and consequential order dated 05.02.2019, by which the pay scale of the applicants were re-fixed are not tenable in the eyes of law and as such, same are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to implement the order/letter dated 09.09.2015 and to release all the consequential service benefits Page 14 of 15 O.A. No.330/1037 of 2024 to the applicants, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. Resultantly, instant original application stands allowed.
16. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
17. No order as to costs.
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA (Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial) PM/ Page 15 of 15