A provision labeled as a clarification cannot be applied retrospectively if it substantively alters existing service conditions or withdraws vested rights. Such modifications are deemed substantive amendments and must operate prospectively to ensure fairness and prevent the arbitrary deprivation of benefits already crystallized under the prior interpretation.

*******

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. This common order shall dispose of the aforementioned three writ petitions, as they arise from similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-16688-2016.

2. Present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of office order dated 05.07.2016 (Annexure P-1) and the circular dated 03.03.2016 (Annexure P-8), vide which seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Assistant Engineers was recast retrospectively and further to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondents to assign correct seniority to the petitioners, as it stood prior to the impugned circular dated 03.03.2016 (Annexure P-8).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Briefly stated, the petitioners are employees of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (for short ‘PSPCL’). They were initially appointed to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in May, 2010. At the time of their appointment, they did not possess the qualification of Associate Member of Institution of Engineers (for short ‘AMIE’). The petitioners subsequently acquired AMIE qualification between March, 2013 and March, 2014.

4. As per the then prevalent interpretation of the Punjab State Electricity Board Services of Engineers (Electrical) Regulation, 1965 (for short ‘Regulations, 1965’), particularly Regulation 10.7, they became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (for short ‘AE’) upon completing three years of service and holding AMIE degree. The three-year service requirement was, at that time, computed from the date of their joining as Junior Engineers. Regulation 10.7 is reproduced as under:

“(7) 14% of the Cadre Post of A.E.s shall be reserved for the departmental employee (Technical Subordinate and Drawing Staff) possessing AMIE/Degree in Electrical/Electronics and /Mechanical/Instrumentation Communication Control/Computer Science Engineering and who have completed three years of service in that capacity.” (Emphasis supplied)

5. Consequently, all the petitioners were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) vide order dated 30.06.2014 (Annexure P-3) and were assigned seniority numbers. They successfully completed their probation and have been working in the promoted capacity since then. However, genesis of the present dispute lies in a subsequent office order dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure P-7), which inserted a “clarificatory note” in Regulation 10.7 of Regulations, 1965. This note stipulated that the mandatory three-year service for promotion must be counted only from the date of declaration of AMIE result and not from the date of their joining the service. The clarificatory note is reproduced as under: -

“The Three years service will be considered to be completed as a qualified technical Subordinate i.e. three years will be counted after the date of declaration of result of the acquired requisite qualification while maintaining the seniorities in 14% AMIE/Degree holder quota of Technical Subordinates.”

6. Relying on this amendment and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Dixit Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board , (2015) 1 SCC 474, the respondent-Corporation issued a memo dated 03.03.2016 (Annexure P-8), for preparation of tentative seniority