JUDGMENT

Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral)

The issue relates to claim of the petitioner on the promotional increment on completion of 23 years of service.

2. The foundation of the claim of the petitioner is Finance Circular No.17/1990 dated 23.04.1990. As per the said Circular on compliance of certain conditions as contained in para 2 thereof an employee was entitled to be placed in promotional scale after completion of 9, 16 & 23 years of service. In the year 2010 respondents-Corporation supplemented the conditions as enumerated in the aforesaid circular dated 23.04.1990 by adding another condition of passing departmental examination for grant of promotional increment on completion of 23 years of service with retrospective effect. The condition came under judicial review and the same was decided by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.997 of 2016 titled as Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Patiala and others v. Nirmala Rani and other connected cases, decided on 22.09.2016. The operative part thereof reads as under:-

"26. In conclusion, therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the withdrawal of the benefit for promotional increment as contained in Feature Nos. 7 and 8 of the original circular dated 23.04.1990 by the appellant authorities has no validity in the eyes of law qua those employees who had already become eligible for promotion as on 17.10.2010 and who otherwise were eligible for the same by virtue of the eligibility criteria in force till that date. Of course such deletion of Feature Nos. 7 and 8 would be valid prospectively as against the other class of employees, who did not meet up the prescribed criteria as noted in Para No.7 earlier, or had not yet put in the requisite length of service (23 years)."

3. The condition imposed was thus held to be prospective in its operation. Counsels appearing for the parties are ad-idem that the similarly situated employees approached this Court in another Bunch of petitions which were decided by Coordinate Bench vide order dated 31.05.2022 passed in CWP No.27130 of 2019 titled as Shavinder Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & others. The same have been disposed off as under :-

"Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Corporation, who is being assisted by Mr. Naresh Kumar Sharma, Deputy Secretary, Finance, PSPCL, Patiala, submits that being a welfare corporation, the Corporation does not want to deny a legitimate claim of any of its employee in case covered under the rules/instructions. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that though, the claim of the petitioners have been declined by the authorities concerned, which order has been challenged by them in the present proceedings but, the corporation is not averse of reconsideration in case, any of the petitioners represents against the impugned order pointing towards any factual discrepancy in the order declining them the benefits. Learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation further submits that he has instructions to submit that the Corporation will consider the claim of each employee, who has approached this Court afresh keeping in view the instructions which were prevalent on the date of his/her eligibility for the grant of 23 years promotional increment.

Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the only request of the Corporation is that the employee concerned should file appropriate claim bringing out the discrepancy, which according to them, is part of the impugned order, which needs consideration at the hands of the Corporation. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the grounds given for declining of the claim of the petitioner already, which have been impu