HC quashes PSPCL order altering engineers’ seniority

Nearly a decade after Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) recast the seniority of its assistant engineers retrospectively, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the decision.

The court ruled that the PSPCL could not retrospectively alter seniority by disguising a substantive change in promotion eligibility as a mere “clarification”.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that “the so-called clarification” was, in fact, “a substantive amendment and cannot be applied retrospectively to recast the seniority of the petitioners”.

The petitions were filed by assistant engineers (electrical), claiming that the PSPCL’s office order dated February 9, 2016, inserted a “clarificatory note” in Regulation 10.7 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Services of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations, 1965.

The note stipulated that the mandatory three-year service for promotion from junior engineer to assistant engineer must be counted “from the date of declaration of AMIE results” rather than from the date of the initial appointment.

Justice Brar observed that the PSPCL, before the note, had consistently interpreted the rule to mean that service before or after obtaining the AMIE degree was to be counted alike. “The language of the regulation does not indicate that the requisite three years of service must necessarily be completed after obtaining the AMIE/degree,” the Bench observed.

Terming the 2016 change a departure from the original rule, Justice Brar asserted: “The so-called clarification has, in effect, substantively altered the scope of the original regulation… The Supreme Court has categorically held that a clarification cannot impose an unanticipated burden or deprive any party of an anticipated benefit.”

Meanwhile, the Bench was told that the petitioners were appointed junior engineers (electrical) in May 2010 and acquired their AMIE qualifications between March 2013 and March 2014.

They were under the prevailing interpretation of Regulation 10.7 promoted as assistant engineers (Electrical) on June 30, 2014, after the completion of three years of service and acquiring the qualification.

But their seniority was revised following the February 2016 order and subsequent circular dated March 3, 2016, and office order dated July 5, 2016, prompting them to approach the High Court. They were represented by senior advocate Amit Jhanji, with advocates Kapil Kakkar, Mayank Mathur, Eliza Gupta and Shivam Kapila.

Justice Brar also asserted that the PSPCL had itself admitted in its written statement that the regulation had in fact been “amended” through the February 2016 order.

“The mere description of a provision as a ‘clarification’ does not bind the Court,” he said, adding that courts must determine whether a change is truly clarificatory or a substantive amendment that could only operate prospectively.

The Bench further asserted that Regulation 10.7 had been “consistently understood and applied” by the PSPCL in a uniform manner and that the so-called clarification effectively withdrew vested rights already accrued to the petitioners.