ORDER

1. I.A. No.15130/2024, I.A. No.15113/2024, I.A. No.15119/2024 and I.A. No.15132/2024 have been filed by the respondents-State in W.P. Nos.13847/2023, 14864/2023, 14867/2023 and 14870/2023 respectively requesting therein that All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) may be made party.

2. Looking to the relief claimed by the petitioners, the issue involved in these cases are as to whether the benefit already granted under the AICTE regulation by the respondent/State authority can be withdrawn pursuant to the subsequent regulation of AICTE or not.

3. In these cases no relief has been claimed against the AICTE and relief has been sought only against the authority which has passed the order withdrawing the relief already granted pursuant to the regulation of AICTE, therefore, I find that AICTE is neither the necessary nor proper party, accordingly, I.A. No.15130/2024, I.A. No.15113/2024, I.A. No.15119/2024 and I.A. No.15132/2024 are rejected.

4. By the instant petitions, learned counsel for the petitioners is assailing the order dated 11.9.2017 (Annexure P/10) whereby the respondent No.5-Principal has withdrawn the benefits granted to the petitioners vide order dated 1.7.2017 whereby they have been granted the benefit of A.G.P. after completion of six years of service and as such, they became entitled to get Rs.6,000/- as AGP and pay fixation was made accordingly. The petitioners, in these petitions, have also assailed orders dated 16.8.2022 (Annexure P/12) and 21.4.2023 (Annexure P/14) passed by the respondents.

5. Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said benefit has been granted to them pursuant to the All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘AICTE’) Regulation dated 5.3.2010 (Annexure P/4) and its respective clause i.e. clause-(v) which reads as under :-

"(v) ,slk O;k[;krk] ftld¢ ikl fdlh dk;ZØe dh çklafxd 'kk[kk@fo"k;&{ks= esa ihpMh vFkok fu".kkr fMxzh ugÈ gS] O;k[;krk d¢ :i esa 6 o"kZ dh lsok iwjh djus d¢ mijkar gh 6000 #i;s d¢ ,thih d¢ fy, ik= g¨xkA^^

6. He has also submitted that the benefit which had been granted to the petitioners was withdrawn pursuant to the subsequent notification dated 4.1.2016 which has been filed by the respondents along with their reply as Annexure R/1. Shri Verma, learned counsel further submits that this notification came into force w.e.f. 4.1.20216 and it contains clause 3.5 which reads as under :-

“Incumbent and newly recruited Lecturer with B.E./B.Tech qualification in appropriate branch/discipline either entering the teaching profession newly or Lecturers already in service in Polytechnic Institutions shall be designated as Lecturer and shall be placed in the Pay Band of Rs. 15600- 39100 with AGP of Rs.5400 and will move to AGP of Rs.6000 on completion of Master’s qualification in appropriate branch/discipline. Further, Incumbent and newly recruited Lecturer who do not have Ph.D. or a Master’s degree in the relevant branch/discipline of a program shall be eligible for the AGP of Rs.7,000 (stage-2) as Lecturer (Senior Scale) only after completion of 9 years service as Lecturer.”

7. He submits that this clarification in earlier notification dated 5.3.2010 cannot be made effective retrospectively but it should be made effective prospectively and as such, the right accrued in favour of petitioners pursuant to the earlier notification dated 5.3.2010, cannot be taken away by way of subsequent clarification dated 4.1.2016 and accordingly, he submits that the impugned orders dated 11.9.2017 (Annexure P/10), 16.8.2022 (Annexure P/12) and 21.4.2023 (Annexure P/14) are illegal and the same deserve to be set aside.

8. Per Contra Shri Kekre, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State relying upon the stand taken by the respondents has submitted that the clarification dated 4.1.2016 though applicable prospectively but it is applicable for the petitioners for the reason that the petitioners have completed 6