[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rupinder Kumar And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 10 February, 2026

                                           1

CWP-29326
    29326-2025 and connected matters




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH



105+246(6 cases)                                 Date of decision:10.02.2026
                                                                  10.02.2026



1.                                                 CWP-29326-2025(O&M)


Rupinder Kumar and others
                                                                .....Petitioners
                                                                .....Petitioner
                                     VERSUS

State of Punjab and others
                                                                .....Respondents

2.                                                          CWP-37868-2025
                                                                      2025


Amandeep Singh and others
                                                                 .....Petitioner
                                     VERSUS

State of Punjab and others
                                                                .....Respondents

3.                                                          CWP-15849-2025
                                                                      2025


Chander Bhan and others
                                                                .....Petitioners
                                                                .....Petitioner
                                     VERSUS

State of Punjab and others
                                                                .....Respondents




                                 1 of 12
              ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 00:14:49 :::
                                            2

CWP-29326
    29326-2025 and connected matters




4.                                                    CWP-30027-2025

Rakesh Kumar and others

                                                               ... Petitioners

                                      Versus

State of Punjab and others

                                                              ...Respondents

5.                                                    CWP-37528-2025

Gurjeet Singh and others

                                                               ...Petitioners

                                      Versus

State of Punjab and others

                                                              ...Respondents

6.                                                    CWP-31231-2025

Rajpal Singh and others

                                                               ...Petitioners

                                      Versus

State of Punjab and others

                                                              ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present :   Mr. R.S. Sohi, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-37528
                                                               37528-
            2025 and 31231-2025.

            Mr. Parveen K. Saini with Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj and
            Mr.Budhadev Maity, Advocates for the petitioners in CWP
            Nos.15849, 29326, 30027 & 37868 of 2025.

            Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG,
                              AG, Punjab
                                  Punjab-State.




                                 2 of 12
              ::: Downloaded on - 21-02-2026 00:14:50 :::
                                            3

CWP-29326
    29326-2025 and connected matters




             Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Sharma,
             Mr. Anirudh Malhan and Ms. Navdita Rathore, Advocate for
             respondent No.5-PSTCL
                             PSTCL in CWP
                                       CWP-29326 & 15849 of 2025.

             Mr. Sapandhir, Advocate for respondent No.4 in CWP-37528
                                                                37528-
             2025.

             Mr. Hridyavans S. Randhawa with Mr. Opinderpal S. Walia and
             Mr. R.P.S. Bara, Advocate for respondent
                                           respondent-PSPCL.

             Mr. Jastej, Advocate for respondent No.4 in CWP
                                                         CWP-29326-2025.
                                                                   2025.

             Mr. Vansh Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.4 in CWP-
                                                                 CWP
             15849-2025.

             Ms.
              s. Kavita Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.4-PSPCL
                                                            PSPCL in
             CWP-31231-2025
                        2025 (through V.C)

             Ms. Priyanka Malik, Advocate for respondent No.4 in CWP-
                                                                 CWP
             30027-2025.

             Mr. Anurag Mor, Advocate for Ms. Palika Monga, Advocate for
             respondent No.4 in CWP-37868
                                    37868-2025.


HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
               BRAR J. (Oral)

CM-15470--CWP-2025 in CWP-29326-2025

The present application has been filed under Section 151 of

CPC for placing on record the instructions dated 03.10.2025 (Annexure

P-37)

37) for proper adjudication of the present case.

In view of the grounds mentioned tioned in the application, the same is

allowed as prayed for. Annexure P-37 P 37 is ordered to be taken on record.

Registry is directed to place the same at an appropriate place.

3 of 12

CWP-29326 29326-2025 and connected matters

MAIN

1. This order shall dispose of the above above-mentioned mentioned writ petitions

as they hey arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity,

the facts are taken from CWP-29326-2025.

2025.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present

writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India on the following

prayers:-

"a) Praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the instructions dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure P-6)

6) and letter dated 11.06.2021 (Annexure P P-18)

18) and letter dated 21.09.2021 (Annexure P P-20)

20) issued by respondent No.2 o.2 and order dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure P P-17)

17) and order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P P-34)

34) issued by respondent No.5 and circular dated 17.08.2022 (Annexure P-

P

19) issued by respondent No.4 qua the petitioners whereby the petitioners have been granted pay sc scale ale of Rs.19900 Consolidated (on the basis of Grade Pay of 1900) as per Central Pay Commission instead of Punjab Pay Scale/Pattern i.e. 10900-34800 34800 with Grade Pay 3400, which has been granted to the ALMs and ASSAs who were appointed prior to 17.07.2020.

b) Further praying for quashing the Regulation 2 Sub-Rule Rule 2(b) of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (Revised Pay) Regulations, 2021 (Annexure P P-8, 8, dated 17.11.2021) whereby the above said regulations have not been

4 of 12

CWP-29326 29326-2025 and connected matters

made applicable to the petitioners or PSPCL employees recruited on or after 17.07.2020 which is against the trite law.

c) Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the pay scale to the petitioner/ASSAs/ALMs and ALMs as per Punjab Pay ay Scales/Regulation i.e. 10900 10900-34800 34800 with Grade Pay 3400 which has been granted to ALMs and ASSAs, who were appointed prior to 17.07.2020 and also granted all the allowance, including dearness allowances, during the 3 years of probation also and also trea treatt such probation period towards permanent service for all intents and purposes.

d) Further praying for directing the respondents to take into account the statutory pay scale of Rs.10900 Rs.10900-34800 34800 Grade Pay Rs.3400/- with further pay revisions from the date of o their direct appointment along with arrears and interest at 12% per annum thereon keeping in view the fact that similar question of law has already been decided by this Court as well as Division Bench of this Court and upto the level of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

e) Further praying for directing the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs.35400 (level 6 of Central Pay Commission as per Pay Grade of Rs.3400 Grade Pay) instead of Rs.19900/- (as per Pay Grade 1900) due to the reason that the persons appointed on the posts of ALMs and ASSAs prior to issuance of instruction dated 17.07.2020 were getting pay grade of Rs.3400 as per revised pay scale."

3. Short reply on behalf of respondent No.4 in CWP CWP-37528-2025, 2025,

reply by way of affidavit on behalf of respondent No No.4 in CWP-29326-2025

5 of 12

CWP-29326 29326-2025 and connected matters

and reply on behalf of respondent No.4 in CWP CWP-31231-2025 2025 filed in the

Court today during the course of hearing, which are ordered to be taken on

record. Registry is directed to place the same at an appropriate place.

4. Learned counsel el for the petitioners, inter alia,, contends that the

petitioners are working on the posts of Assistant Line Man (ALM) and

Assistant Sub Station Attendants (ASSA) in the respondents respondents-Corporation.

Corporation.

The primary grievance of the petitioners is regarding arbitra arbitrary ry reduction of

the pay-scale scale of the petitioners from 10900 10900-34800 34800 with Grade Pay of

Rs.3400/- to Rs.19,900/-

Rs.19,900/ (consolidated) on the basis of lower grade pay i.e.

Rs.1900/-.. The statutory pay-scale pay scale of the employees of the respondents-

respondents

Corporation are governed by the Punjab State Electricity Board Technical

Grade-III III Service Rules 1996, as is discernible from Annexure P P-10.

10. The

pay-scales scales were revised in the year 2009 when the revised pay pay-scale scale of 2009

were implemented. In the meantime, the Government of Punjab issued

P-6) to implement 7th Central Pay instructions dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure P

Commission Pay Matrix which was initially adopted by the respondent-

respondent

Corporation without amending or repealing the statutory rules, however, on

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

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

17.07.2020 issued by the Government of Punjab. The petitioners challenged

the revision of the Rules to the extent that they have been made applica applicable ble

retrospectively. Further the amendment de hors the procedure prescribed

under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 is not sustainable.

6 of 12

CWP-29326 29326-2025 and connected matters

The respondent-Corporation respondent Corporation cannot implement the amendment carried out

on 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-34) P without hout following the drill of the procedure

prescribed under Section 79(c) the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948.

Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed in the year 2022 onwards and

initially they were paid the pay scale in terms of the statutory Rules

governing ning the pay scale to the employees appointed prior to the impugned

amendment which was carried out on 22.04.2025 (Annexure P P-34).

34). As such,

their pay-scales scales are governed by the Punjab State Electricity Board

Technical Services Grade-III Grade III Rules 1996 and the Revised Pay Scales Rules

2009. These Rules cannot be overridden by defeating the accrued right of

the petitioners by carrying out the amendment with retrospective effect. The

impugned action of the respondents-Corporation respondents Corporation by defeating the right of

petitioner er for equal pay for equal work and they are being discriminated

only on the basis of the date of appointment. The aforesaid issue has been

considered by this Court in CWP-7877-2024 2024 and connected cases,, titled as

Amandeep Singh and others Versus Punjab Sta State te Power Corporation

others, decided on 17.09.2025 (Annexure P Limited and others, P-36)

36) and also the

judgment rendered by this Court in CWP CWP-28550-2025, titled as Lakhvir

others,, decided on Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others

23.09.2025.

5. Per contra, learned rned counsel for the respondent respondent-Corporation Corporation

submits that the notification dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure P P-6)

6) passed by

Government of Punjab has been adopted by the respondent respondent-Corporation.

Corporation.

7 of 12

CWP-29326 29326-2025 and connected matters

Further the petitioners cannot claim parity with pay scale with those w who ho

were appointed prior to the appointment of petitioners. The petitioners were

never promised or offered the higher pay-

pay-scales, scales, the petitioners were well

aware of the fact that they will be paid consolidated pay for which they had

participated in the selection selection process. Further the appointment letters issued

to the respective petitioners is self explanatory and Clause Clause-IV IV thereof, the

emoluments of the appointees have been clearly set up. Further in terms of

the notification 17.07.2020 (Annexure P-6) P 6) the res respondent-Corporation Corporation has

not only adopted the same but has also carried out amendment on

P 34). The Board of the Directors in its 70th Meeting 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-34).

has adopted the instructions dated 17.07.2020 and carried out the

amendment in terms of the instructions (Annexure P P-6)

6) regarding pay scale.

As such prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties aand nd gone

through the case file with their able assistance. It transpires that the entire

argument of the petitioner hinges upon the instructions dated 17.07.2020

(Annexure P-6) P adopting the 7th Central Pay Commission Matrix for the

employees of the respondent-Corporation.

responde Corporation. There is no denial to the fact that

the petitioners were appointed in the year 2022, as such, prior to the

amendment, and the pay fixation of the employees were governed by the

statutory rules as it existed at time of their appointment. In Incontrovertibly controvertibly the

amendment was carried out in terms of the aforesaid instructions in the

8 of 12

CWP-29326 29326-2025 and connected matters

Punjab State Electricity Board Technical Services Grade Grade-III III Rules 1996 only

on 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-34).

7. The question regarding retrospective effect of an amendment is

no longer res integra. A Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

V. Vincent Velankanni vs. Union of India and Others 2024 SCC OnLine

SC 2642 while speaking through Justice S Sandeep Mehta observed as

under:-

"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/amendme modification/amendment nt 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 th this is regard were culled out by this Court in a recent judgment of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu 35 35, in the following terms:--

"52. From the aforesaid authorities, the following principles could be culled out:-

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/a order/provision/amendment mendment to be considered as clarificatory of the previous law, the pre-amended 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

9 of 12

CWP-29326 29326-2025 and connected matters

whether it is in reality a clarificato clarificatory ry or declaratory provision or whether it is a substantive amendment which is intended to change the law and which would apply prospectively."

8. Further, a Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sree

Manu, (2023) 19 SCC 30 while Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Manu

speaking through Justice. B.V. Nagarathna observed as under :

38.4. 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.

9. Reliance in this regard may ay be placed on the judgements

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Martin Lottery

Ltd. (2009) 12 SCC 209 and Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Agencies Ltd.,

Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602.

10. Admittedly the right of the petitioners to be paid according to

the statutory rules prevailing at the time of their appointment had

crystallized upon their appointment.

11. The aforementioned position of law has also been approved by

a Full Bench of this Court in Kaka v. Hassan Bano, 1998(1) RCR

484. Speaking through Justice Swatanter Kumar, the following (Criminal) 484.

was held:

"28. ...This rule is however, subject to a well recognised principle that the benefits acquired under the existing rules canno cannott be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, that is to say, there is no power to make such a rule under the proviso to Article 309

10 of 12

CWP-29326 29326-2025 and connected matters

which affects or impairs vested rights. Therefore, unless it is specifically provided in the rules, the employ employees ees who are already promoted before the amendment of the rules cannot be reverted and their promotions cannot be recalled. In other words, such rules laying down qualifications for promotion made with retrospective effect must necessarily satisfy the test of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the constitution : State of Mysore v. M.N. Krishna Murty, (1973) 2 SCR 575 : AIR 1973 Supreme Court 1146, B.S. Yadav v. State of Punjab, (1981) 1 SCR 1024 : AIR 1981 Supreme Court 561, State of Gujarat v. Ramanlal Keshavlal Soni, Soni, (1983) 2 SCR 287 : AIR 1984 Supreme Court 161 and KC Arora v. State of Haryana, (1984) 3 SCR 623: