CWP-29326 IN TH 105+246(6 1. Rupinder Ku State of Punja 2. Amandeep Si State of Punja 3. Chander Bha State of Punja 1 326-2025 and connected matters IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGA cases) er Kumar and others VERSUS f Punjab and others eep Singh and others VERSUS Punjab and others er Bhan and others VERSUS Punjab and others NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH Date of decision:10.02.2026 CWP-29326-2025(O&M) .....Petitioner SUS .....Responden CWP-37868-2025 .....Petitioner SUS .....Responden CWP-15849-2025 .....Petitioner SUS .....Responden 2026 ioners ondents 2025 itioner ondents 2025 ioners ondents PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 4. Rakesh Kuma State of Punja 5. Gurjeet Singh State of Punja 6. Rajpal Singh State of Punja CORAM: Present : 2 326-2025 and connected matters Kumar and others Versus f Punjab and others t Singh and others Versus f Punjab and others Singh and others Versus f Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. R.S. Sohi, Advocate for 2025 and 31231-2025. Mr. Parveen K. Saini with Mr.Budhadev Maity, Advocate Nos.15849, 29326, 30027 & 378 Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab CWP-30027-2025 ... Petitioners ...Respondents CWP-37528-2025 ...Petitioners ...Respondents CWP-31231-2025 ...Petitioners ...Respondents E HARPREET SINGH BRAR for the petitioners in CWP-37528 with Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj and vocates for the petitioners in CWP & 37868 of 2025. unjab-State. ioners dents ioners dents ioners dents 7528- j and CWP PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 HARPREET CM-15470- CPC for pla P-37) for pro allowed as p Registry is di 3 326-2025 and connected matters Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Sr. Advoca Mr. Anirudh Malhan and Ms. respondent No.5-PSTCL in CWP Mr. Sapandhir, Advocate for re 2025. Mr. Hridyavans S. Randhawa wi Mr. R.P.S. Bara, Advocate for re Mr. Jastej, Advocate for respond Mr. Vansh Malhotra, Advocate 15849-2025. Ms. Kavita Joshi, Advocate CWP-31231-2025 (through V.C) Ms. Priyanka Malik, Advocate 30027-2025. Mr. Anurag Mor, Advocate for M respondent No.4 in CWP-37868 REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) -CWP-2025 in CWP-29326-2025 The present application has be or placing on record the instruction or proper adjudication of the present c In view of the grounds mentione d as prayed for. Annexure P-37 is o ry is directed to place the same at an ap dvocate with Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Ms. Navdita Rathore, Advocate for n CWP-29326 & 15849 of 2025. for respondent No.4 in CWP-37528 awa with Mr. Opinderpal S. Walia and for respondent-PSPCL. spondent No.4 in CWP-29326-2025. ocate for respondent No.4 in CWP cate for respondent No.4-PSPCL in h V.C) ocate for respondent No.4 in CWP e for Ms. Palika Monga, Advocate for 37868-2025. 2025 has been filed under Section 151 of uctions dated 03.10.2025 (Annexure sent case. tioned in the application, the same is 7 is ordered to be taken on record. t an appropriate place. arma, te for 7528- ia and 025. CWP- CL in CWP- ate for 51 of exure ame is ecord. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 MAIN 1. as they arise the facts are t 2. writ petition prayers:- 4 326-2025 and connected matters This order shall dispose of the arise from a similar factual matrix. H ts are taken from CWP-29326-2025. The petitioners have approached tition under Articles 226 of the Consti <a) Praying for issuan certiorari for quashing the (Annexure P-6) and letter date and letter dated 21.09.2021 respondent No.2 and order date and order dated 22.04.2025 respondent No.5 and circular d 19) issued by respondent No.4 q petitioners have been grant Consolidated (on the basis of Central Pay Commission instea i.e. 10900-34800 with Grade Pa to the ALMs and ASSAs w 17.07.2020. b) Further praying fo Sub-Rule 2(b) of the Punjab Sta (Revised Pay) Regulations, 17.11.2021) whereby the above f the above-mentioned writ petitions trix. However, for the sake of brevity, 025. oached this Court by filing the present Constitution of India on the following suance of a writ in the nature of he instructions dated 17.07.2020 dated 11.06.2021 (Annexure P-18) 021 (Annexure P-20) issued by dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure P-17) 025 (Annexure P-34) issued by lar dated 17.08.2022 (Annexure P o.4 qua the petitioners whereby the ranted pay scale of Rs.19900 s of Grade Pay of 1900) as per stead of Punjab Pay Scale/Pattern e Pay 3400, which has been granted s who were appointed prior to g for quashing the Regulation 2 b State Power Corporation Limited ns, 2021 (Annexure P-8, dated ove said regulations have not been titions revity, resent owing e of 020 18) by 17) by e P- the 900 per ttern nted to n 2 ited ated been PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 3. reply by way 5 326-2025 and connected matters made applicable to the petit recruited on or after 17.07.2020 c) Further praying f nature of mandamus directing t scale to the petitioner/ASSAs/A Pay Scales/Regulation i.e. 1090 which has been granted to A appointed prior to 17.07.202 allowance, including dearness of probation also and also trea permanent service for all intents d) Further praying fo take into account the statutory Grade Pay Rs.3400/- with furthe their direct appointment along w per annum thereon keeping i question of law has already bee as Division Bench of this Cour Supreme Court. e) Further praying fo grant pay scale of Rs.3540 Commission as per Pay Grade of Rs.19900/- (as per Pay Grad the persons appointed on the po issuance of instruction dated grade of Rs.3400 as per revised Short reply on behalf of respond y way of affidavit on behalf of respon petitioners or PSPCL employees 020 which is against the trite law. ng for issuance of a writ in the ing the respondents to grant the pay As/ALMs and ALMs as per Punjab 10900-34800 with Grade Pay 3400 to ALMs and ASSAs, who were .2020 and also granted all the ess allowances, during the 3 years treat such probation period towards tents and purposes. g for directing the respondents to tory pay scale of Rs.10900-34800 urther pay revisions from the date o ng with arrears and interest at 12% ng in view the fact that similar been decided by this Court as well ourt and upto the level of Hon9ble g for directing the respondents to 35400 (level 6 of Central Pay ade of Rs.3400 Grade Pay) instead Grade 1900) due to the reason that e posts of ALMs and ASSAs prior to ted 17.07.2020 were getting pay ised pay scale.= espondent No.4 in CWP-37528-2025, respondent No.4 in CWP-29326-2025 yees the pay njab 400 ere the ears ards ts to 800 te of 12% ilar well 9ble ts to Pay tead that r to pay 2025, 2025 PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 and reply on Court today d record. Regis 4. petitioners ar Assistant Sub The primary the pay-scale Rs.3400/- to Rs.1900/-. T Corporation Grade-III Ser pay-scales we were implem instructions d Commission Corporation w 22.04.2025 in 22.04.2025 17.07.2020 is the revision o retrospectivel under Section 6 326-2025 and connected matters ply on behalf of respondent No.4 in today during the course of hearing, wh . Registry is directed to place the same Learned counsel for the petition ers are working on the posts of As nt Sub Station Attendants (ASSA) i imary grievance of the petitioners is r scale of the petitioners from 109 to Rs.19,900/- (consolidated) on th . The statutory pay-scale of the e ation are governed by the Punjab Sta III Service Rules 1996, as is discern ales were revised in the year 2009 whe mplemented. In the meantime, the tions dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure P ission Pay Matrix which was initial ation without amending or repealing t 025 in fact the rules governing the pa 025 (Annexure P-34) on the bas 020 issued by the Government of Pun ision of the Rules to the extent that th ectively. Further the amendment de Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Suppl o.4 in CWP-31231-2025 filed in the ing, which are ordered to be taken on same at an appropriate place. etitioners, inter alia, contends that the of Assistant Line Man (ALM) and SA) in the respondents-Corporation. ers is regarding arbitrary reduction of 10900-34800 with Grade Pay of ) on the basis of lower grade pay i.e. f the employees of the respondents jab State Electricity Board Technical iscernible from Annexure P-10. The 9 when the revised pay-scale of 2009 , the Government of Punjab issued re P-6) to implement 7th Central Pay initially adopted by the respondent aling the statutory rules, however, on the pay scales were amended only on e basis of the instructions dated of Punjab. The petitioners challenged that they have been made applicable de hors the procedure prescribed (Supply) Act 1948 is not sustainable. in the en on at the ) and ration. ion of ay of ay i.e. dents- hnical . The f 2009 issued al Pay ndent- er, on nly on dated enged ble cribed nable. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 The responde on 22.04.202 prescribed u Admittedly, initially they governing th amendment w their pay-sca Technical Se 2009. These the petitioner impugned ac petitioner for only on the b considered by Amandeep S Limited and judgment ren Singh and 23.09.2025. 5. submits that Government 7 326-2025 and connected matters spondent-Corporation cannot implem 4.2025 (Annexure P-34) without follo bed under Section 79(c) the Ele edly, the petitioners were appointed y they were paid the pay scale in ing the pay scale to the employees ap ment which was carried out on 22.04.2 scales are governed by the Pu cal Services Grade-III Rules 1996 and These Rules cannot be overridden by itioners by carrying out the amendmen ned action of the respondents-Corpor er for equal pay for equal work and n the basis of the date of appointmen ered by this Court in CWP-7877-2024 ep Singh and others Versus Pun and others, decided on 17.09.2025 nt rendered by this Court in CWP nd others Versus State of Pun 025. Per contra, learned counsel f s that the notification dated 17.07.20 ment of Punjab has been adopted b plement the amendment carried out ut following the drill of the procedure e Electricity (Supply) Act 1948. inted in the year 2022 onwards and ale in terms of the statutory Rules yees appointed prior to the impugned 2.04.2025 (Annexure P-34). As such, the Punjab State Electricity Board 96 and the Revised Pay Scales Rules en by defeating the accrued right of ndment with retrospective effect. The orporation by defeating the right of rk and they are being discriminated ntment. The aforesaid issue has been 2024 and connected cases, titled as Punjab State Power Corporation .2025 (Annexure P-36) and also the CWP-28550-2025, titled as Lakhvir Punjab and others, decided on nsel for the respondent-Corporation .07.2020 (Annexure P-6) passed by pted by the respondent-Corporation. ed out edure 1948. s and Rules ugned such, Board Rules ght of t. The ght of inated been led as tion so the hvir d on ration ed by ration. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 Further the p were appoint never promis aware of the participated i to the respec emoluments the notificatio not only ad 22.04.2025 (A has adopted amendment i As such pray 6. through the c argument of (Annexure P employees of the petitione amendment, statutory rule amendment w 8 326-2025 and connected matters r the petitioners cannot claim parity w ppointed prior to the appointment of p promised or offered the higher pay- of the fact that they will be paid conso ated in the selection process. Further respective petitioners is self explanat ents of the appointees have been cle tification 17.07.2020 (Annexure P-6) ly adopted the same but has also 025 (Annexure P-34). The Board of t dopted the instructions dated 17.0 ment in terms of the instructions (Ann h prays for dismissal of the writ petitio I have heard the learned coun h the case file with their able assistan nt of the petitioner hinges upon the ure P-6) adopting the 7th Central Pa ees of the respondent-Corporation. Th titioners were appointed in the yea ment, and the pay fixation of the em ry rules as it existed at time of their ap ment was carried out in terms of th arity with pay scale with those who nt of petitioners. The petitioners were -scales, the petitioners were well consolidated pay for which they had urther the appointment letters issued planatory and Clause-IV thereof, the en clearly set up. Further in terms of 6) the respondent-Corporation has s also carried out amendment on rd of the Directors in its 70th Meeting 17.07.2020 and carried out the s (Annexure P-6) regarding pay scale. petitions. d counsel for the parties and gone ssistance. It transpires that the entire on the instructions dated 17.07.2020 tral Pay Commission Matrix for the ion. There is no denial to the fact that e year 2022, as such, prior to the the employees were governed by the eir appointment. Incontrovertibly the of the aforesaid instructions in the ho were e well y had issued f, the ms of n has nt on eeting t the scale. gone entire .2020 or the ct that to the y the ly the in the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 Punjab State on 22.04.202 7. no longer res V. Vincent V SC 2642 wh under:- <43. I clarific applica Order Govern retrosp vested entail culled Univer cou 9 326-2025 and connected matters State Electricity Board Technical Serv 4.2025 (Annexure P-34). The question regarding retrospe ger res integra. A Two Judge Bench of nt Velankanni vs. Union of India while speaking through Justice 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 <52. From the aforesaid autho could be culled out:- i) If a statute is curative previous law, retrospect permitted. 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 al Services Grade-III Rules 1996 only trospective effect of an amendment is nch of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in dia and Others 2024 SCC OnLine stice Sandeep Mehta observed as treated to be in the nature of a ernment Order, it may be made rsely, if a subsequent Government ication/amendment of the earlier ation would be prospective as 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 uthorities, the following principles ive or merely clarificatory of the pective operation thereof may be uent order/provision/amendment to rificatory of the previous law, the ought to have been vague or y when it would be impossible to a provision unless an amendment is amendment is considered to be a claration of the previous law and ospectively. fication may not expand or alter the provision. a provision is described as a tion, the Court is not bound by the statute itself, but must proceed to f the amendment and then conclude 6 only ent is urt in Line ed as of a ade ent rlier as l of also ere arya iples the be t to the or e to nt is be a and the s a the d to lude PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 8. Sankarachar speaking thro 9. rendered by t Agencies Ltd Maharashtra 10. the statutory crystallized u 11. a Full Benc (Criminal) 4 was held: <28. princip taken a there i 10 326-2025 and connected matters whether it is in reality provision or whether it which is intended to cha apply prospectively.= Further, a Two Judge Bench of t charya University of Sanskrit v. M g through Justice. B.V. Nagarathna ob 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 Reliance in this regard may ed by the Hon9ble Supreme Court in U s Ltd., (2009) 12 SCC 209 and Hiten shtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602. Admittedly the right of the peti atutory rules prevailing at the tim lized upon their appointment. The aforementioned position of Bench of this Court in Kaka v. al) 484. Speaking through Justice S 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 lity a clarificatory or declaratory r it is a substantive amendment change the law and which would ch of the Hon9ble Apex Court in Sree v. Manu, (2023) 19 SCC 30 while thna observed as under : provision is described as a e Court is not bound by the said lf, but must proceed to analyse the and then conclude whether it is in claratory provision or whether it is hich is intended to change the law spectively. ay be placed on the judgements Union of India v. Martin Lottery Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of e petitioners to be paid according to e time of their appointment had ion of law has also been approved by v. Hassan Bano, 1998(1) RCR tice Swatanter Kumar, the following ver, subject to a well recognised d under the existing rules cannot be h retrospective effect, that is to say, rule under the proviso to Article 309 tory ent ould Sree while s a said the is in it is law ments ttery te of ing to t had ed by CR owing ised t be say, 309 PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 which specifi promo their p down q necess : State 1973 S SCR 1 Raman Court 1984 L 12. rendered by a Haryana 200 13. (Annexure P petitioners. T was governe Services Gra Their right t upon their ap revise the pay is not merely alters the sco of employees 11 326-2025 and connected matters 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.= Reference in this regard may a ed by another Full Bench of this Court 2003 (4) RCR (Civil) 73. In the present case, the amendm ure P-34) cannot be applied retrospe ers. The petitioners were appointed in overned by the existing Punjab Stat es Grade-III Rules 1996 and the Re right to be paid according to those s eir appointment. The subsequent ame the pay scale downwards based on the merely clarificatory but a substantive he scope of the original rules and adv loyees who were already appointed. 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 a Murty, (1973) 2 SCR 575 : AIR Yadav v. State of Punjab, (1981) 1 e Court 561, State of Gujarat v. ) 2 SCR 287 : AIR 1984 Supreme te of Haryana, (1984) 3 SCR 623: may also be placed on a judgement Court in Parshotam Dass v. State of mendment carried out on 22.04.2025 trospectively to the detriment of the inted in 2022, at which time their pay b State Electricity Board Technical he Revised Pay Scales Rules 2009. those statutory rules had crystallized amendment in 2025, which seeks to on the instructions dated 17.07.2020, antive change to the pay structure. It nd adversely affects the vested rights inted. Such a substantive amendment t is eady and ying must tion AIR 1) 1 t v. eme 623: ement te of .2025 of the ay hnical 2009. llized eks to .2020, ure. It rights dment PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29326 can only hav rights of the p 14. respondent/C terms of the a the conseque from date of 15. paper-books February 10 P.C 12 326-2025 and connected matters ly have prospective effect and cannot f the petitioners who were appointed p Consequently, all the present w dent/Corporation is directed to fix the f the applicable Rules as on the date o sequential benefits including arrears w ate of receipt of certified copy of this o Registry is directed to place a ooks of the connected matters. ary 10, 2025 Whether speaking/r Whether Reportable cannot be used to defeat the accrued inted prior to the amendment. nt writ petition(s) are allowed. The ix the pay of the petitioners strictly in date of their appointment and release rears within a period of three months f this order. ace a photocopy of this order on the (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE king/reasoned. : Yes/No ortable. : Yes/No crued . The ctly in elease onths n the RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document