The amendment to regulations cannot retrospectively take away accrued rights.

RANJIT SINGH, J.

1. When this Regular Second Appeal was filed, no substantial question of law was formulated. The counsel for the appellant contends that substantial question of law would arise in this case. It is urged that substantial question of law that would arise in this case is that if an amendment of Regulation can take away the accrued right retrospectively. The counsel for the appellant would further contend that the amendment which was not in existence at the time of filing the suit could not have been validly and legally taken into consideration by the appellate Court to upset the finding recorded by the Trial Court by placing reliance on such an amendment which was effected subsequent to the filing of the suit. These two substantial questions of law indeed would arise in this case.

2. The facts noticed in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the respondent-Punjab State Electricity Board for denying him the benefit of increment in the revised pay scale in terms of Para 7 of the PSEB (Revised Scale of Pay) Regulation, 1980 (for short, "the Regulations ). The appellant was working as Sectional Officer (Mech.) (Junior Engineer-II) in p. S. E. B. , Arrear Divisional Electrical, Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda. Concededly, he was drawing pay of Rs.220/- as on 1.1.1978 in the old scale applicable to the employees in the scale of Rs.200-10-250-270-15-350 with annual increment falling on Ist March every year. These pay scales were revised in terms of the abovesaid Regulations and the Line superintendent/sectional Officer (Mechanical) were placed in the scale of rs.700-25-850-30-1000-40-1200. The pay of the appellant was fixed at the minimum of the scale i. e. Rs.700/- as on 1.1.1978 in this revised scale. As per para 6 of the Regulations, the appellant was entitled to the next increment on 1.1.1979. On 15.10.1981, the appellant represented to the Executive Engineer, arrears Division to the effect that Sh. R. K. Arora, Line Superintendent, was drawing Rs.200/- in the old scale as on 1.1.1978 and his pay scale in the revised scale has also been fixed at Rs.700/-, which is at par with that of the appellant. The appellant accordingly prayed that in terms of Para 7.1 proviso (ii) of the Regulations, he was entitled to the first increment with effect from 2.2.1978 as R. K. Arora was drawing pay less than that of the appellant in the unrevised pay scale, which on the relevant date was Rs.225/-, so far as the appellant was concerned. On the basis of these pleadings and the evidence led, the suit filed by the appellant was decreed. This primarily was on the basis of the provisions of Para 7 of the regulations referred to above, which reads as under:-

"7. Date of increment in the revised scale:-

(1)The next increment of a Government employee whose pay has been fixed in accordance with Rule 6 shall be granted on the date on which he would have drawn his increment had he continued in the existing scale; Provided that: (i) Where the revised pay is fixed at the minimum of the time scale and on such fixation the revised pay exceeds the existing emoluments by more than Rupees Seventy five, the next increment shall be granted on the date it falls due in the revised scale; (ii)the next increment shall be granted on the next succeeding day following the appointed day, to a Government employee whose pay fixed on the appointed day in the revised scale is at the same stage as the one fixed for another Government employee drawing pay at a lower stage than his in the same existing scale. "

3 The respondent-Electricity Board filed an appeal against the same and the Appellate Court had reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by taking into consideration the revised proviso (ii) to Para 7.1 of the Regulations. This para of the regulations was revised with effect from 17.5.1983 and reads as under:-

" (ii) the next increment shall be granted on the next succeeding day following the appointed day, to a Gov