Punjab-Haryana High Court
Abhijeet Singh And Ors vs Pspcl And Ors on 8 October, 2025
CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 25.09.2025
Pronounced on: 08.10.2025
1. CWP-16688-2016 (O&M)
Vijay Singh and others
... Petitioners
Vs.
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others
... Respondents
2. CWP-2118-2018 (O&M)
Sanjay Kashyap and others
... Petitioners
Vs.
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others
... Respondents
3. CWP-13586-2018 (O&M)
Abhijeet Singh and others
... Petitioners
Vs.
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others
... Respondents
1 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:24 :::
CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -2-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Mayank Mathur, Advocate and
Ms. Eliza Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioners (in CWP-16688-2016).
Mr. Shivam Kapila, Advocate for
Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate
for the petitioners (in CWP-2118 & 13586-2018).
Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate
for respondents No.6, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 28 & 29
(in CWP-2118-2018).
Mr. Akash Yadav, Advocate for
Mr. Jagdeep S. Rana, Advocate
for the respondent-PSPCL (in CWP-16688-2016 & 2118-2018).
Mr. Jatinder Singh Khokhar, Advocte for
Mr. R.S. Pandher, Advocate
for respondents No.5, 7 to 12, 14 to 18, 24, 25, 27, 30, 32 & 33
(in CWP-2118-2018).
Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate
for the respondent(s) (in CWP-13586-2018).
*******
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. This common order shall dispose of the aforementioned three writ petitions, as they arise from similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-16688-2016.
2. Present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking 2 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -3- quashing of office order dated 05.07.2016 (Annexure P-1) and the circular dated 03.03.2016 (Annexure P-8), vide which seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Assistant Engineers was recast retrospectively and further to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondents to assign correct seniority to the petitioners, as it stood prior to the impugned circular dated 03.03.2016 (Annexure P-8).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. Briefly stated, the petitioners are employees of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (for short 'PSPCL'). They were initially appointed to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in May, 2010. At the time of their appointment, they did not possess the qualification of Associate Member of Institution of Engineers (for short 'AMIE'). The petitioners subsequently acquired AMIE qualification between March, 2013 and March, 2014.
4. As per the then prevalent interpretation of the Punjab State Electricity Board Services of Engineers (Electrical) Regulation, 1965 (for short 'Regulations, 1965'), particularly Regulation 10.7, they became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (for short 'AE') upon completing three years of service and holding AMIE degree. The three-year service requirement was, at that time, computed from the date of their joining as Junior Engineers. Regulation 10.7 is reproduced as under:
"(7) 14% of the Cadre Post of A.E.s shall be reserved for the departmental employee (Technical Subordinate and Drawing Staff) possessing AMIE/Degree in Electrical/Electronics and 3 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -4-
/Mechanical/Instrumentation Communication Control/Computer Science Engineering and who have completed three years of service in that capacity."
(Emphasis supplied)
5. Consequently, all the petitioners were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) vide order dated 30.06.2014 (Annexure P-3) and were assigned seniority numbers. They successfully completed their probation and have been working in the promoted capacity since then. However, genesis of the present dispute lies in a subsequent office order dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure P-7), which inserted a "clarificatory note" in Regulation 10.7 of Regulations, 1965. This note stipulated that the mandatory three-year service for promotion must be counted only from the date of declaration of AMIE result and not from the date of their joining the service. The clarificatory note is reproduced as under: -
"The Three years service will be considered to be completed as a qualified technical Subordinate i.e. three years will be counted after the date of declaration of result of the acquired requisite qualification while maintaining the seniorities in 14% AMIE/Degree holder quota of Technical Subordinates."
6. Relying on this amendment and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Dixit Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board, (2015) 1 SCC 474, the respondent-Corporation issued a memo dated 03.03.2016 (Annexure P-8), for preparation of tentative seniority list of Assistant Engineers for the period 01.10.2012 to 30.09.2014. The petitioners, being adversely affected, filed detailed objections (Annexure P-9) and they were granted opportunity of 4 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -5- personal hearing. Ultimately, the respondents dismissed the petitioners' objections and confirmed the recast seniority list vide impugned office order dated 05.07.2016 (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved by this retrospective alteration of their seniority after two years of service in the promoted cadre, the petitioners have approached this Court.
CONTENTIONS
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s), inter alia, contended that impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary and constitutes illegal retrospective application of amended service conditions. The petitioners were promoted based on the unambiguous language of Regulation 10.7 of Regulations, 1965, as interpreted and applied by the respondent-Corporation itself at the relevant time. The requirement of three years of service was universally computed from the date of joining as a Technical Subordinate (Junior Engineer). After a lapse of nearly two years from their promotion, re- interpretation of the regulation and applying it to petitioner(s) amounts to altering the conditions of service to their grave detriment after the right to promotion and consequent seniority had already been crystallized. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.C. Arora and anr. Vs. State of Haryana, 1984 (2) SLR 97, where it was held that a variation in terms of service with retrospective effect is impermissible.
8. It was further contended that the respondents' attempt to term the office order dated 09.02.2016 as a "clarificatory note" is a mere subterfuge. A 5 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -6- clarification explains an existing ambiguity; it does not change the substantive criterion for eligibility. The note fundamentally altered the very basis for calculating the three-year experience from the "date of joining" to the "date of passing AMIE" and therefore, is a substantive amendment, not a clarification. It was pointed out that Clause VIII of the circular dated 03.03.2016 (Annexure P-8) specifically states that the 'amendments' in Clauses 6 & 7 will be applicable prospectively. Thus, the respondents were fully aware that the prevailing scheme of things could not be altered retrospectively and yet, they proceeded to recast the seniority of the petitioners with retrospective effect.
9. It was submitted that as a substantive amendment to the Service Regulations, it was mandatorily required to be published in the official gazette as per Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (for short 'Act of 1948'), which was the governing statute, when the Regulations, 1965 were framed. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Surjit Singh and anr. Vs. Nirmal Singh and others, (LPA No.89 of 1995) and Jagjit Singh Gill and others Vs. PSPCL, (CWP No. 11726 of 1997). The failure to notify the amendment in the gazette renders it non est and unenforceable in law.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners(s) further contended that the respondents' entire action is predicated on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Dixit's case (supra) and the reliance is wholly misplaced. Firstly, the judgment was rendered in the context of the service 6 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -7- regulations of Rajasthan Housing Board, which are different from the PSPCL's Regulations, 1965. Secondly, neither the petitioners nor the respondent-PSPCL were parties to the said litigation. The respondents cannot, therefore, selectively pick and choose a judgment and apply it to unsettle the settled seniority of the petitioners, especially when the specific regulations governing them and the past practices of the respondent-Corporation was not under consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. It was argued that the judgment in K.K. Dixit's case (supra) cannot be treated as a judgment in rem against the petitioners and applied retrospectively.
11. It is further submitted that the impugned office order dated 05.07.2016 (Annexure P-1) is cryptic and unreasoned, which does not reflect any application of mind. Moreover, seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Assistant Engineers is governed by Regulation 16 of the Regulations, 1965, which reads as under:
"16. The seniority inter se of members of the service in a particular class of post viz. Assistant Engineers/ Assistant Executive Engineers, Executive Engineers. Superintending Engineers and Chief Engineers shall be determined by the dates of their continuous appointments in that class."
11.1 The respondents have not amended the aforementioned Regulation and therefore, their attempt to import a new criterion for seniority from an amended eligibility rule (Regulation 10.7) is a colourable exercise of power and is ultra vires the parent regulation itself.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, inter alia, 7 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -8- submitted that the respondent-Corporation, as a model employer, has the inherent and statutory power to amend its service regulations from time to time to ensure efficiency, meritocracy and to align with evolving legal standards. The amendment was made following a due process. A five-member Committee was constituted to examine the issue, which recommended incorporating the legal principle culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Dixit's case (supra). This recommendation was duly approved by the Whole Time Directors and the Board of Directors of the Corporation. Accordingly, a "clarification" was inserted in Regulation 10.7 and as per the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a clarificatory provision is capable of operating retrospectively. Hence, learned counsel contended that the respondent-Corporation cannot be faulted for having altered the seniority of the petitioners on the basis of the retrospective application of the said clarification.
13. It was argued that the judgment in K.K. Dixit's case (supra) has laid down the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution. The principle that experience for promotion must be counted from the date of acquiring the essential qualification is a general principle, that can and must be applied to all similar situations to maintain uniformity and legality in service matters. Further, the petitioners' reliance on Section 79 of Act of 1948 is completely misconceived. The erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) was dissolved and the PSPCL was incorporated as a company under the Companies Act, 1956, following the enactment of the Electricity Act, 2003.
8 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 :::
CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -9-
The Act of 1948 stands repealed and consequently, the requirement of gazette notification under Section 79 of the repealed Act does not apply to the PSPCL. The Board of Directors of a company is fully competent to amend its service regulations through resolutions and such amendments are effective without any requirement of publication in the state gazette. The judgments in Surjit Singh's case (supra) and Jagjit Singh's case (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the present case since the said judgments relate to a period prior to the coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003.
14. Learned counsel contended that initial seniority list was merely tentative and was under scrutiny due to numerous legitimate complaints from other employees about anomalies. The revised list was issued within a short span (less than two years), before any vested rights could be said to have crystallized based on that list. The action was, therefore, corrective and timely. It was submitted that seniority is not a fundamental right, but a civil right, that is subject to the applicable rules. The petitioners do not have an indefeasible right to retain a seniority that was computed based on a rule that was subsequently amended to align with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
15. Moreover, none of the petitioners has been reverted. They continue to hold the substantive post of Assistant Engineer and draw all the attendant salaries and benefits. The recast of the seniority list is a notional re- fixation for the purposes of determining future promotions and other service 9 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -10- benefits. Therefore, grievance of the petitioners is highly exaggerated and no tangible or immediate prejudice has been caused to them, that warrants the extraordinary intervention of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS
16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, the following questions arise for adjudication:
(i) Whether the respondents were legally justified in relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Dixit's case (supra) to recast the seniority of the petitioners?
(ii) Whether the office order dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure P-7), which introduced a "clarificatory note" in Regulation 10(7) of the 1965 Regulations, is a mere clarification or a substantive amendment, and if it is the latter, whether it can be applied retrospectively to alter the petitioners' seniority?
Applicability of the judgment rendered in K.K. Dixit's case (supra) to the present case
17. In K.K. Dixit's case (supra), the issue arose in the context of promotion to the post of Project Engineer (Senior). Under the applicable rules, Degree-holder Project Engineers (Junior) with three years of service and Diploma-holder Project Engineers (Junior) with seven years of service were eligible for such promotion, with 20% and 30% of the posts reserved for them, respectively. The question before a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether Diploma-holder Project Engineers (Junior), who acquired 10 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -11- the qualification of AMIE during service, were entitled to reckon the experience gained by them as diploma-holders towards eligibility for promotion against 20% quota earmarked for degree holders, or whether they were required to acquire a further three years of experience after obtaining the AMIE qualification. The Court held that Project Engineers (Junior) recruited on the basis of diploma, upon subsequently acquiring AMIE qualification, could not count their pre-AMIE service for the purpose of eligibility under 20% quota reserved for degree holders. It was clarified that in order to claim promotion under the said 20% quota, three years of service experience must necessarily be acquired after obtaining AMIE degree. While relying upon a three-Judge Bench judgment passed in Shailendra Dania Vs. S.P. Dubey, (2007) 5 SCC 535, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Dixit's case (supra), speaking through Justice Shiva Kirti Singh, held as follows:
"33. As held in para 36 of Shailendra Dania case [Shailendra Dania v. S.P. Dubey, (2007) 5 SCC 535 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 202] we are required to decide the matter on the basis of the entire scheme of the rules, the facts and circumstances at the relevant time and the rules called in question, for independently giving meaning to the words, the principle involved and the past practice, if any. In that view of the matter, the word "with"
occurring before the words, "three years' service" or "seven years' service" has to be given a natural meaning as understood in the common parlance and in the light of two watertight compartments created for the two classes for promotion with respective quotas of 20% and 30%, it must be held that three years' total experience of service must be service as a degree- holder. This view is fortified by the provision in the Regulations that for similar promotion a diploma-holder has to have seven 11 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -12- years' total experience of service. The relevant regulation does not contemplate any reduced total experience for promotion for a diploma-holder who may acquire degree or AMIE qualification while in service. Even on acquiring such higher qualification the diploma-holder concerned is neither given any advantage vis-à- vis other diploma-holders nor is he ousted from the right of consideration against 30% quota provided for diploma-holders. In such a situation in order to enter into the watertight compartment of 20% quota for the degree-holders with three years' experience of service, a diploma-holder with AMIE qualification must show that he fulfils the entire eligibility criterion i.e. he is a degree-holder with three years' experience of service as a degree-holder. Such watertight compartment and separate quotas cannot be rendered meaningless so as to affect the prospect of promotion of the degree-holders by inducting into that category a diploma-holder who does not have three years' experience of service as a degree-holder. In the absence of any such provision in the Regulations, no equivalence can be permitted in such a situation because even a diploma-holder with seven years' experience of service is confined to a prospect or chance of promotion only against 30% quota for the diploma- holders."
(Emphasis supplied)
18. On the other hand, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.B. Joshi Vs. Satish Kumar Pandey, (1993) Supp. (2) SCC 419 held that where the rules provide that the diploma-holders having obtained a Degree of Engineering, working as Sub-Engineers, shall be eligible for promotion as Assistant Engineers after 08 years of experience and 10% posts are reserved for that category, then once the person while working as Sub- Engineer acquires the degree, he becomes entitled for the incentive of acceleration in promotion. If these 08 years are counted from the date of 12 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -13- acquiring qualifications, the whole purpose of prescribing incentive would be defeated. Further, as per the well settled principle of service jurisprudence, in the absence of specific rule, the seniority amongst persons holding similar posts in the same cadre has to be determined on the basis of length of service, not from the date of acquiring degree or from any other fortuitous circumstance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, speaking through Justice N.M. Kasliwal, held as follows:
"13. If we accept the contention of Mr. Ashok Sen, it would defeat the very scheme and the purpose of giving incentive of adding educational qualification by diploma-holders while continuing in service in case the period of 8 years is counted from the date of obtaining graduate degree in engineering. It may be noted that no such argument was raised even from the side of the respondents before the Tribunal. If such interpretation as now sought to be advanced by Mr. Ashok Sen, learned senior counsel is accepted, no relief could have been granted to the respondent Satish Kumar Pandey. We would illustrate the above position on admitted facts 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 1989 when these Sub-Engineers were considered for promotion as Assistant Engineers. Even otherwise, if this period of 8 years is counted from the date of acquiring degree then this incentive of adding the qualification during the continuation of service and getting the advantage of acceleration in promotion in 8 years would for all practical purposes become nugatory and of no benefit.
14. It is further important to note that in the cases before us, the Government itself has been adopting the practice and making promotion as contended by the appellants and we are upholding 13 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -14- such practice. In N. Suresh Nathan's case also this Court had upheld the practice followed by the Government. It is also well settled principle of service jurisprudence that in the absence of any specific rule, the seniority amongst persons holding similar posts in the same cadre has to be determined on the basis of the length of service and not on any other fortuitous circumstance.
xxx xxx xxx
16. In these circumstances mentioned above, we are clearly of the view that the Tribunal was wrong in determining the seniority from the date of acquiring degree of engineering and it ought to have been determined on the basis of length of service on the post of Sub-Engineer and the State Government was right in doing so and there was no infirmity in the orders passed by the Government...."
(Emphasis supplied)
19. The judgment in M.B. Joshi's case (supra) was followed by the two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. Stephen Joseph Vs. Union of India and others, (1997) 4 SCC 753 and the three-Judge Benches of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (2000) 1 SCC 128 and Chandravathi P.K. & Ors. Vs. C.K. Saji & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 734. In light of the divergent lines of precedents, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred the issue to be considered by a Larger Bench. Accordingly, the issue was examined again by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T. Valsan Vs. K. Kanagaraj, 2023 (7) SCC 614.
20. In T. Valsan's case (supra), the Rules initially provided that 80% of the vacancies for Assistant Engineer were to be filled by promotion and 20% 14 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -15- by direct recruitment. The promotion was open to Junior Engineers with three years' service, if holding a Degree in Electrical Engineering and seven years' service, if holding only a Diploma. A subsequent amendment earmarked 50% of promotional posts for Degree-holder Junior Engineers with three years' service and the remaining 50% for Diploma-holders with seven years' service. The significance of this scheme was that Degree holders required fewer years of service for promotion, whereas Diploma holders required more. The issue before the Court was whether a Diploma-holder, who acquired a Degree during service, could count his pre-degree service towards the qualifying period for promotion to Assistant Engineer. After examining the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no distinction can be drawn between the period of service rendered before or after the acquisition of the degree, so long as the degree is acquired and is the basis for consideration of the promotion. Accordingly, for the Department concerned, the view taken in D. Stephen Joseph's case (supra) was declared to be the applicable law. The Hon'ble Apex Court, speaking through Justice S.K. Kaul, has held as follows:
"19. On examining the controversy in the context of the arguments urged and the judicial precedents, we can say that actually, the issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in C. Chakkaravarthy & Ors. v. M. Satyavathy, IAS & Ors. (2015) 16 SCC 652. Though it is a two-Judges Bench view, the very issue has been examined, which is really sought to be debated before us. It was observed in para 10 as under:
"There is, in our opinion, considerable merit in that submission of the petitioners. There is no gainsaying that
15 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -16- this Court has unequivocally declared that promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers in the service shall be on the basis of merit and merit alone and that seniority of the candidates cannot be taken as an input for determining such merit. This Court has also very clearly rejected the procedure followed by the Government whereby the date on which the candidate had acquired his degree qualification was taken as a determining factor. That being so, and given the large number of candidates eligible for consideration the Government was entitled to adopt the method of restricting the zone of consideration based on the number of vacancies. Inasmuch as the Government relied upon the DoPT guidelines for achieving that objective it committed no fault. The question, however, is whether the Government could draw-up a list of eligible candidates not by reference to the length of service in the cadre but by reference to the date on which the candidates acquired the eligibility which, as noticed earlier, was itself dependent upon the date on which the candidate acquired the degree qualification. Since, however, the acquisition of a degree qualification itself was not based on any consistently 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 be anything but uniform and nondiscriminatory. As between the date of acquiring eligibility and the date of entering service as a Section Officer/Junior Engineer the latter was, in our opinion, a more intelligible, fair and reasonable yardstick to be applied for drawing-up the list of eligible candidates by the review DPC. Inasmuch as the review DPC relied upon the date of acquiring eligibility as the basis for preparation of the list of eligible candidates, it committed a mistake which needs to be corrected."
20. A reading of the aforesaid paragraph shows that the promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer was to be based on merit and merit alone. The seniority of candidates could not be taken into account for determining such merit. In this merit-based selection, 16 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -17- there was a qualifying prescription to be so considered on merits. The time period spent in the service as Junior Engineer was at variance dependent on whether the person had a qualifying Degree or a qualifying Diploma. There was no necessity for a Degree to perform the job of a Junior Engineer, and all persons were alike. The distinction only came into play when the merit- based promotion had to take effect. Thus, as to when the person obtained the degree as a method of advancement of his knowledge and entitling him to an earlier consideration in the time period would not be relevant.
xxx xxx xxx
22. A three Judges Bench of this Court in Chandravathi P.K. & Ors. (supra) referred to a number of earlier judgments on the issue, including D. Stephen Joseph (supra), Satpal Antil v. Union of India (1995) 4 SCC 419, Anil Kumar Gupta (supra), A.K. Raghumani Singh v. Gopal Chandra Nath (2000) 4 SCC 30 and Pramod K. Pankaj v. State of Bihar (2004) 3 SCC 723 and quoted with approval of the last of these judgments. The principle laid down is that in the absence of any statutory provision or rule made thereunder or under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, once an incumbent is appointed to the post according to rules, their seniority has to be counted from the date of appointment.
23.In Shailendra Dania & Ors. (supra) case, it was noticed in para 36 that the past practice would be a relevant aspect while construing the service rule. The aforementioned judgment distinguished itself from D. Stephen Joseph (supra) case on the ground that the interpretation of the rules would be determined on a case-to-case basis, and the wordings of the rules as well as past practices are important criteria. Similarly, in the present case, the Electricity Department has a past practice of considering the years of service prior to the acquisition of the degree.
24. The principle of past practice being of significance has also been noticed in M.B. Joshi (supra) case. This judgment also discusses the aspect where there are two channels for promotion 17 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -18- (as in the present case) and illustrates that if the total time period of service was not to be counted, then there could not be said to be any incentive to acquire the higher degree except as an academic pursuit. The incentive is that if you acquire a higher degree as compared to a diploma, you come into a channel which entitles consideration, albeit on merit, in a fast lane with less number of years of service required in the cadre.
25. In our view, one of the important aspects is the wording of the Rule itself. According to the Rules, 50 percent of the promotion quota is from Junior Engineers with three years of regular service in the grade "and" possessing a degree in Electrical Engineering. The Rule does not say from which date the time period of regular service has to be counted, but there is a twin requirement of three years of regular service as also a degree. As against this, the second scheme of 50 percent promotion from Junior Engineers uses the word "with" seven years of regular service in the grade and possessing a diploma in Electrical Engineering. Thus, the distinction is between the diploma holder and the degree holder and the period of service rendered as a Junior Engineer without any distinction between the years served prior to or after having obtained the degree. Accepting the plea of the Appellant would amount to insertion into the requirement of the Rules, which is not stipulated. Further, this is how the Rule has been understood by the Department, the framers of the Rules, and accordingly, the Rules have been uniformly implemented in the Electricity Department over a period of time. In view of the above, due weightage must be given to the view of the framers of the Rules."
(Emphasis supplied)
21. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in CWP-2784-2015 titled as 'Jai Prakash Sharma and Ors. Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana and Ors.', decided on 01.10.2015, ruled in favour of the petitioners in that case, holding that it is not necessary to acquire the prescribed 18 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -19- experience only after obtaining the educational qualification. The Bench placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. Stephen Joseph's case (supra), M.B. Joshi's case (supra), Anil Kumar Gupta's case (supra) and A.K. Raghumani Singh & Ors. Vs. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors., (2000) 4 SCC 30. Importantly, the Court distinguished the facts of that case from those in K.K. Dixit's case (supra), observing that the issue before it did not concern any dispute inter se the Diploma holders and Degree holders. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment passed by the Division Bench are reproduced as under:
"Very recently, the same issue again came up before the Apex Court in K.K.Dixit Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board & others 2014 (4) SCT 219 wherein the promotions were to the posts of Project Engineer (Senior) from amongst the Project Engineer (Juniors) who were Diploma holders with 7 years total experience of service. The dispute was again between Diploma holders and the Degree holders. Accordingly, it was held that the qualifications of AIME and the experience of service had to be post the acquisition of the degree. In the present case, as noticed, the issue is not of any dispute inter se the Diploma holders and Degree holders. The Rules provide that a person has to be a graduate in Civil Engineering and he must have the experience of working either under Government, private employment or on the academic side. In the alternative, the experience as a Consulting Engineer, Valuer of not less than 10 years, has been made mandatory, subject to certain conditions.
The observations made by the Apex Court in the case of A.K.Raghumani Singh (supra) and Anil Kumar Gupta (supra) would squarely apply and the respondents were not justified in reading the qualification into the conjective word and implying that experience had to be subsequent to the acquisition of the 19 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -20- degree.
In such circumstances, the question of law is answered in favour of the writ petitioners that it is not necessary to gain the experience under the Rules, after the acquisition of the educational qualifications and accordingly, the order dated 31.12.2014 (Annexure P11), is quashed and the writ petition is allowed..."
(Emphasis supplied)
22. This Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. Stephen Joseph's case (supra), M.B. Joshi's case (supra), and Anil Kumar Gupta's case (supra). As emphasized by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the principle of past practice assumes significance in construing service rules. Regulation 10.7 of Regulations, 1965 provides that 14% of the cadre posts of Assistant Engineer are reserved for departmental employees possessing an AMIE/Degree with three years of service. Prior to insertion of the clarification, the consistent practice of the respondent-Corporation was to draw no distinction between the service rendered before or after acquisition of AMIE/Degree. It was, in this manner, that the regulation was understood and applied and on that basis, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) vide order dated 30.06.2014 (Annexure P-3).
23. The framers of Regulation 10.7 deliberately employed the word 'and' rather than 'with' while linking the two qualifications. The language of the regulation does not indicate that the requisite three years of service must 20 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -21- necessarily be completed after obtaining AMIE/degree. In this context, the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Jai Prakash Sharma's case (supra) are particularly instructive, which read as under: -
"In Anil Kumar Gupta & others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & others (2000) 1 SCC 128, the question for consideration by the Apex Court was framed as under:
"Whether, while deciding whether the respondents had two years' experience, the experience gained while holding diplomas could also be counted in addition to the experience gained after obtaining degree?"
The said question was answered by holding that the language of the notification was not as such that the two years' professional experience had to be gained after obtaining the degree. The qualifications for appointment were (a) degree in Civil Engineering and (b) two years professional experience. The qualifications are, therefore, similar to those in the case before us. Moreover, the word "and" and not the word "with" connects the two qualifications which makes this case closer to the case before us than the one in N.Suresh Nathan's case (supra)...
xxx xxx xxx A similar view was taken in A.K.Raghumani Singh & others Vs. Gopal Chandra Nath & others 2000 (4) SCC 30. The issue therein was also question of promotion to the post of the Superintending Engineer from the post of Executive Engineer and apart from the qualifications, 6 years regular service in the grade was the requirement. The writ petitioner had more than the required service but it was only after little over 2 years of service that he had been granted the AIME Diploma. It was, accordingly, held that the Courts would not be justified in reading a qualification into the conjuctive word and imply the word 'subsequent' after the word 'with'. The view of the High Court which had held that the professional experience meant not 21 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -22- only experience gained after obtaining the degree, was, accordingly, upheld."
(Emphasis supplied)
24. Furthermore, Regulation 16 of Regulations, 1965 expressly provides that the seniority inter se members of the service in a particular post shall be determined by the dates of their continuous appointment in that class. As noted earlier, the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.B. Joshi's case (supra) emphasized that it is a well-settled principle of service jurisprudence that in the absence of any specific rule, seniority among persons holding similar posts in the same cadre must be determined on the basis of length of service and not on any other fortuitous circumstance. In K.K. Dixit's case (supra), the controversy pertained to Diploma holders vis-à-vis Degree holders and the Court accordingly held that the qualifications of AMIE and the requisite experience had to be acquired post-degree. In contrast, the present case does not involve any such dispute between Diploma holders and Degree holders.
25. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Dixit's case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. On the contrary, the principles laid down in D. Stephen Joseph's case (supra), M.B. Joshi's case (supra) and Anil Kumar Gupta's case (supra) squarely govern the issue at hand. Consequently, the reliance placed by the respondents on K.K. Dixit's case (supra) is misconceived and their attempt to recast seniority of the petitioners on the strength of the said decision is legally untenable.
22 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 :::
CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -23-
Retrospective application of the 'clarificatory note'
26. The respondent-Corporation, while placing reliance on the judgment in K.K. Dixit's case (supra), issued office order dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure P-7), whereby a "clarificatory note" was inserted in Regulation 10.7, mandating that the requisite three years of service for promotion be reckoned only from the date of declaration of AMIE result, rather than from the date of initial appointment. On this basis, the respondent-Corporation proceeded to retrospectively recast seniority of the petitioners.
27. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and Others Vs. Dr. Manu and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 640, speaking through Justice B.V. Nagarathna, has held as follows:
"38. 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 23 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -24- 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.
39. Applying the law as discussed hereinabove to the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the subsequent Government Order dated 29-3-2001 cannot be declared as a clarification and therefore be made applicable retrospectively. The said order has substantively modified the Government Order dated 21-12-1999 to the extent of stating that teachers who had already got the benefit of advance increments for having a PhD degree, would not be eligible for advance increments at the time of their placement in the selection grade. As noted above, the law provides that a clarification must not have the effect of saddling any party with an unanticipated burden or withdrawing from any party an anticipated benefit. However, the Government Order dated 29-3-2001 has restricted the eligibility of Lecturers for advance increments at the time of placement in the selection grade, only to those who do not have a PhD degree at the time of recruitment and subsequently acquire the same.
xxx xxx xxx
42. Further, merely because the subsequent Government Order has been described as a clarification/explanation or is said to have been issued following a clarification that was sought in that regard, the Court is not bound to accept that the said order is only clarificatory in nature. On an analysis of the true nature and purport of the subsequent Government Order dated 29-3- 2001, we are of the view that it is not merely clarificatory, but is a substantial amendment which seeks to withdraw the benefit of two advance increments in favour of a certain category of 24 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -25- Lecturers. The benefit withdrawn was not anticipated under the previously existing scheme. Therefore, such an amendment cannot be given retrospective effect."
(Emphasis supplied)
28. The aforementioned observations were recently upheld by a two- Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Vincent Velankanni Vs. Union of India, 2024 SCC Online SC 2642, wherein the Court, speaking through Justice Sandeep Mehta, has held as follows:
"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 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. Manu in the following terms...
xxx xxx xxx
44. Applying these principles to the case at hand, we are of the view that the subsequent GO dated 4th August, 2015 cannot be read simply as a clarification and therefore cannot be made applicable retrospectively. The said GO has substantively modified the position governing seniority in the Industrial Establishments by reviving the earlier OM dated 4th November, 1992, and supersedes the 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 August, 2015 would have catastrophic effect on the seniority of the entire cadre."
(Emphasis supplied) 25 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -26-
29. In the present case, there was neither ambiguity nor vagueness in the pre-amended Regulation 10.7 and it cannot be contended that the provision was incapable of reasonable interpretation without the subsequent clarification. As noted earlier, prior to its insertion, the respondent-Corporation made no distinction between service rendered before or after acquisition of AMIE/Degree. The regulation was consistently understood and applied in this manner and on that basis, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. The so-called clarification has, in effect, substantively altered the scope of the original Regulation by mandating that the requisite three years of service for promotion be reckoned only from the date of declaration of AMIE result, rather than from the date of initial appointment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that a clarification cannot impose an unanticipated burden or deprive any party of an anticipated benefit.
30. Further, insertion of so-called clarification has effectively resulted in withdrawal of the vested rights of the petitioners. Moreover, it must be pointed out that learned counsel for the respondents could not controvert the fact that Clause VIII of the circular dated 03.03.2016 (Annexure P-8) itself clearly states that the 'amendments' in Clauses 6 & 7 regarding counting of three years service from the date of result, will be applicable prospectively. Clause VIII of the circular dated 03.03.2016 is reproduced as under:
"VIII) FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the above cited amendments in resolution 6 & 7 will be applicable prospectively and will 26 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -27-
become the part of Service of Engineer Regulation-1965 (Electrical & Civil) after the approval of the same from Board of Directors, PSPCL & inclusion in the Service Regulations."
(Emphasis supplied)
31. Furthermore, curiously, respondents No.1 to 3, in their written statement, have specifically stated that the regulations were 'amended' through office order dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure P-7). The exact stand taken in the written statement is reproduced as under:
"4. That the aforesaid recommendations of the 5 members committee was put up before the whole time directors and after the approval having been granted by the whole time directors, the same was put up before the board of directors of the answering respondent corporation. The said recommendations were thereafter approved by the board of directors of the answering respondent corporation. An amendment was subsequently made through office order number 1046/REG 25(a) V dated 11.2.2016.. Once the regulations were amended upon being approved by the board of directors, the seniority list of 1.10.2012 to 30.9.2013 was amended and seniority for the period commencing from 1.10.2013 to 30.9.2014 was also prepared."
(Emphasis supplied)
32. The mere description of a provision as a 'clarification' does not bind the Court. It is incumbent upon the Court to examine the true nature of the amendment and determine whether it is genuinely clarificatory or declaratory, or whether it is, in fact, a substantive amendment altering the law, which can only operate prospectively. Accordingly, in view of the above, this Court holds 27 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 ::: CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -28- that so-called clarification in Regulation 10.7 is, in substance, a substantive amendment and cannot be applied retrospectively to recast seniority of the petitioners.
CONCLUSION
33. In view of the foregoing discussions, the questions framed above are answered in the following terms:
(i) The respondents were not legally justified in relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Dixit's case (supra) to recast seniority of the petitioners.
(ii) The office order dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure P-7), which introduced a "clarificatory note" in Regulation 10.7 of Regulations, 1965, is a substantive amendment and therefore, it cannot be applied retrospectively to alter seniority of the petitioners.
34. Accordingly, all these writ petition(s) are disposed of. The office order dated 05.07.2016 (Annexure P-1) and the circular dated 03.03.2016 (Annexure P-8) are hereby quashed insofar as they retrospectively recast seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Assistant Engineers. While the respondent-Corporation has the competence to amend its service regulations, the amendment to Regulation 10.7 by way of inserted clarificatory note shall operate only prospectively. The respondents are directed to determine seniority of the petitioner(s) accordingly.
28 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 :::
CWP-16688-2016 and connected cases -29-
35. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
36. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.
[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ]
08.10.2025 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
29 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 06:29:25 :::