High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/8961/2026dismissed

Shayam Lal Sharma v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam Limited

2026-03-30Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar25 pages

" #$%"&$

' ( ( # $

%&" '

() *+ ))

"#&*"&$ , ) ' ( ( $

-*+ )))

" * "&$ .

) ' ( ( /

%&" '

()

+, -.+ / (

(

0 '/ 1 23 4 0 . "

23 1 0 25/ 23 1 0 2 23 1 0 *

, ./1 23 1

0 ( 3

* 1 23 +

0 &.

"1 23 +

0 0 23 1

6 0 )1 23 4 0 ./+ 1 23 +

+ (

(

0/ 12

4 +

+ "

4 $431 / 53 1

8 + +

+ .

2" .

;

/ .

. :.

+.)

9. <

+ + (

45 + 3 =.1

+ 5

""4 + .

3 .+

)

4 :. "

8 + ""

!4 3 "/

6 4 $

>" %

$>% #+

$>%1 + +"

4 + #$%'( 8 1 + + #++ 3

8 + .

"3 5" 1

53 <? "" .

) + ""

5" + + + 2

+ 6 " <

@ ;

34 5" 1 + :.

)

*." @

A "

*."1

B$*C 8 )

9. $431 A3 $

45 *." @

) .+

+ 4 5"1 8

+ + #$%'(!

3 " .5:. " 1

+ 3 3 +.)

9. < 2))3 1 + +

( < 2 .1 " .

.5 .

+ 4 +

) ++3

++"

" ) 8 3

% .

CWP52242026 "

Rajnish Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others ) ""

*." @

$*1 4

9 +" 4 5"

)

2 .1 + 4 +

3 Rajnish Kumar(supra)

. " .

). +. " .

.5 3. *." @

$*1

) .+

+" 4

5" 9 ?

4""

5" +" 1 <

;

1 3

9. 3 . +

)

4 +

5 ""D ) + $431

1 + 5 ."

3 3 +.)

9. < 6 ! .

*." @ $*

.1 . "

++" ++3" = 1 .

*." @ $*

+. 5"4

%*% 0( 5

"143. Retirement on superannuation.-

! "!#$!

"# ""% ! % %" #%

% & % % "

&# & !%% # #&' ! $!

"# %& %% ""% ! % % " #% & ( %

%%## % "" %

"# %"" % ## ) Differentlyabled employees having minimum degree of disability of 70% and above * Blind employees* $ +,-

"#*

!. "/%%

0$!

"# ""& ! % %

! " % " %

Note 1.- / #

"# "" & &"

%% "#) &" % %" Note 2.─ 1 $!

% ! %% ""& 2% &

#%!# ""&%

"# "3 $ " ' # ( ) $!

Note 3.-3$!

"# & &" "

! ""& %' %, &% %45# ' ""&

% "6 %$ 7 %

8 9 :& &#,/ % " % 6

# ' %, ! "" : % "

! # ""#

"#;

67)8)7)67 &*/&/&$ <0%

( =& # 0/>45>)=9>2245)7 % %

!3"?% %7

$! %' #

&# : %"" " %

' # !"

8!$ "9"

"#) (" #& "" ' # !"8!$ "

9" (# "" % %%% %

&" /%% "$ @

' # !"8!$ "9" Rule 143, in subrule(1) clause (i), clause (ii), Note 1 and 3, shall be omitted;

$ . .5

1 9+""

+3 8

+ +" .

" 41

3 ++3 " 1 + ""

/ 3

3 ) E.) $ C5" .+ .

ExCapt. K.C.

Arora and another vs. State of Haryana and others AIR 1987 SC 1858 ) ""

" 4 3 .

% ++3 .

++" 9+"

+" + / .) E. *% 0 ""4 " <4 7 # & !# " "8 A" ! " # "" %"

%""

8&B " # "" !"# "" !"# It is, however, a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facue prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. But the rule in general is applicable where the object of the statute is to affect the vested rights or to impose new burden or to impair existing obligations. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the legislature to affect existing rights it is deemed to be prospective only. Provisions which touch a right in existence at the passing of the statute are not to be applied retrospectively in the absence of express enactment or necessary intendment.($! "

3"?%

" &

& &

! (

&# #

" !

& "# !%% 7 ! %" &# 6 % "

& """

the Haryana Government cannot take away the accrued rights of the petitioners and the appellants by making amendment of the rules with retrospective effect.;

)

" +"

&.) $ C5" .+ .

S.R. Bhagwat vs. State of Mysore (1995) 6 SCC 161 Bishny Narain Misra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1965 SC

K. Nagaraj and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (1985) 1 SCC 523 ! .

. &.)

4 E.) $ C5" .+ .

Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and others (2022) 4 SCC 3631

.5 +3

. 3 ) 5 . +3 +

1 3"

3 2" @

;

+ / .) E. 2&

* )1 ""4 +

<C2 (

%" " """ an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away the benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule indeed would divest the employee from his vested or accrued rights and that being so, it would be held to be violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

C5 6 : % 3 "?5?

"" %

! & &%

"# "# % "

"# # 6 :% "

'&#%" (6 :"

% &# " " 4&#

C %%% "?5?and the employees who availed the benefit of pension under the scheme, indeed their rights stood vested and accrued to them and any amendment to the contrary, which has been made with retrospective operation to take away the right accrued to the retired employee under the existing rule certainly is not only violative of Article 14 but also of Article 21 of the Constitution. C?7 # "& & "

! > % !%

"#(" " %

"#% " # %

& "# !&%% %"&

%7 ! %% # % % " # !;

! .

). &.) Kashmiri Lal Sharma vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 13551

++" 5"

3 ) +

" ""D1 4

)

9. . +

" +"

&.)

4 E.) % $ C5" .+ .

V. Vincent Velankanni vs.

Union of India and Others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2642 4 + / .) E.

+ 0 ""4 53

) <C7% $!

/ & % " % % " $!

/ # &

" &" !"# !"# if a subsequent Government Order is held to be a modification/amendment of the earlier Government Order, its application would be prospective as retrospective application thereof would result in withdrawal of vested rights which is impermissible in law and the same may also entail recoveries to be made. ( " "" &# B %88 : # !#%8 :!,

%"" E <4= % %"" " "

&"" 7% ! "#" % #% ! " ! % #& 7 % &F > ! >

& " % #% !" )

" !& ! &7 "# "

&" &"#

! "

& " %

" % ! "

!"# 3

>" % #

" % " ! ! "# & ! & " % >

"%& "# %

" "# " % # " # ! & !

"# !"#;

=.1

4 E.) % $ C5" .+ . Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit vs. Manu(2023) 19 SCC 30, 4" + / .) E. %' (

""4 "38.4.

"# & ! & " % >

&# "%& "# %

" "# " % # " # ! & !

!"#;

2 &.

.1 " .

" &.) $ C5" .+ .

Union of India vs. Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd.(2009) 12 SCC

Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602

" 5

++3 &.) 4 =.""

% .

Parshotam Dass vs. State of Haryana 2003 (4) RCR (Civil) 73

Kaka vs. Hassan Bano 1998(1) RCR (Criminal) 484. + / .) E.

,. 1 ""4 53 4

Kaka (supra):

<5 G( " ! &B ""

"that the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot

be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, that is to say, there is no power to make such a rule under the proviso to Article 309 which affects or impairs vested rights(% " % ""# ! "

"# " #

& "" 7 "" #

F "% %

!%%

"# %# % 3" C

% State of Mysore v. M.N. Krishna Murty, (1973) 2 SCR 575 : AIR 1973 Supreme Court 1146, B.S. Yadav v. State of Punjab, (1981) 1 SCR 1024 : AIR 1981 Supreme Court 561, State of Gujarat v. Ramanlal Keshavlal Soni, (1983) 2 SCR 287 : AIR 1984 Supreme Court 161

KC Arora v. State of Haryana, (1984) 3 SCR 623: 1984 Lab. IC 1015;

12.

! .

). " + +" "

Rajnish Kumar (supra)1

. He further submits that Rajnish Kumar (supra) was also decided sub silentio, without consciously determining the scope of application of the amendment to Rule 143 of the HCSR brought about by notification dated 03.02.2026. As such, considering that the notification dated 03.02.2026 was denied prospective application without argument and without reference to the settled law, the finding rendered in this regard in Rajnish Kumar (supra) lacks precedential value. A two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. 1991 INSC 159, speaking through Justice R.M. Sahai, made the following observations in this regard:

<C, "

"# " %" &# # 7

" & " %" '

B ! ! "% 7 &

" "%&)" "A decision passes subsilentio, in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the court or present to its mind."8 "

47 Lancaster Motor Company (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd., (1941) 1 KB 675, 677 : (1941) 2 All England Reporter 11 %"&

&# "

H # % " %"

# % #H 7

! &# Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur., (1989) 1 SCC 101( & "

'precedents subsilentio and without argument are of no moment'. The courts thus have taken recourse to this principle for relieving from injustice perpetrated by unjust precedents. A decision which is not express and is not founded on reasons nor it proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. D % #

# % B "

" 6 B #

7 B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1480 : (1967) 2 SCR 650 : 20 STC 215 &! + # &

& % " &

"" - Any declaration or conclusion arrived without application of mind or preceded without any reason cannot be deemed to be declaration of law or authority of a general nature binding as a precedent.9 !" % :% &"#

% #& #&#

&" " " %" C %%

"#&# 8 ! &B &# #%!

! & B

" "# ! % " Law declared is not that can be culled out but that which is stated as law to be accepted and applied. A conclusion

without reference to relevant provision of law is weaker than even casual observation. 7 %6(

% B % 6 F

F %! " #%"!#% "

B % # !

&# " 3 #$ "%"" %%8 ? C <6 "" %%

8 "" 3 # $ " "" ! "!# "";

8 "

#4C"! " % 7

" # & " #

#A "# &"

#4C1

" 0 # # " & #

"" ! # : # &

%"!# 7 # &

& " In absence of any discussion or any argument the order was founded on a mistake of fact and, therefore, it could not be held to be law declared. ( & %

% " 6

Hoechst Chemicals v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC

Ganga Sugar Mill v. State of U.P., 1980 1 SCC 223 : 1980 1 SCR 769 % ""# " "" !

% "!# " % #

# & "

&% &"

(% " %" &# 6 " "

&"!

" "" %"" &

"#"%&)"

& &

#% ;

" +"

&.) $ C5" .+ .

State of U.P. vs. Jeet S. Bisht 2007 INSC 656

=. ""1 " .

3 % .

The Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd.and another vs. Bhupinder Sharma and another LPA36382025 5 ".

. )

") )3 +3

++" 5" ." 8 "3

+ +. 5"4 <2 G3 %" "%

B % ! " " 8 " . "

% 8 # F !

7 %&! & # & % %!& %

& :

# & "#( " %9"4&#C

"# " % ! %# &F "#=" 8 ". " " B "

' -&"8 B

" % ""

"#0

"# " #

! % 5 ! % % % " 8 ". "# ""

%" &#

B %%% # !#"" "# % &#;

$431 .5:. " 1

34 /

% .

Rajnish Kumar (supra)

" .+

. )

+" 4 5"

) .

3 5

) <

<2 # : &#!% &#! "

"# :! % %%

! % 45 # D

"# ! %45# ""& " %!& %": " # "" % : ' !

9" C %

"# " "" % # ; ! .

). 4 :.

) 3 /

++ 4 + ""D 3 )

+" 1 &.) +

.) ""4 .1

&.) .

% $ C5" .+ .

National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 6 SCC 680. + / .) E. + / 0 ""4 ". <? 1

"" Munna Lal Jain (supra)). 6 "

!& &#

" Reshma Kumari !

Sarla Devi % it should have been well advised to refer the case to a larger Bench.1 # ! " #

Reshma Kumari& " % "

& &

9 B

# "%Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 416 : 2014(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 572 : (2014) 16 SCC 623 "#" # "

&# F "%

" % " %

#%" #% "

#% "

& "# "#3

B & # ! "" & %3

B "& % &" " % !"# B % F "" 6 . There can be no scintilla of doubt that an earlier decision of coequal Bench binds the Bench of same strength. (B 9 BH "! "

"%%" Reshma Kumari (supra) & & &#Santosh Devi (supra).1 ! &

)F "

6 ;

@ =. ""1 " .

6 .5 3

1 9

) .+

4 + + 4 5" 4" ""

5" E. "

A.+ +" 8" 1 "

" / . "

5&3 /

3 $431 .

4 5&3

A3 /

3 9". + 4 5" +.34 *." @ $* ;

5" "

4 . ."""

. .

"")5"

). + )

).+ )

" . ).+G

. 3

5& .)

3 . "

! .

5.) *." @ $* "

5" "

5 "" ."

2" @ .

;

< =.1 3

% .

Jora Singh vs. State of Haryana 2025 NCPHHC 155797 "

" 5 5" +" +" 3 5" ?

531 .

9+"

;

" . "

) . "

+" 4 / 5" @ ?

531

+3 .

8 4 5"

>:.

F++.

=.""

21 <

B2 <<C

*) 4 5" 21

"")5"

" 5& $431 "

." /

) 9

) .+

+ 4 5" ;

+ 45 + 4 5" 4 9". +.34 *."

@ $*

4" ;

1 A3 $

+ +3 + 4 5"

" )

++.

"" 1

5.)

" 5 4 4 + 4 5"1 + ."

") 2

&.) $ C5" .+ .

State of Punjab and others vs. Bhupinder Singh and others

Civil Appeal No.8855 of 2013 (Arising from SLP No.10610 of 2013).

" 1 " .

.5 " "

&. "

++ "

) 5

.5:. :.

" ) 81 . 34 3 5

4 :.

) / .

) +"

&.)

% $ C5" .+ .

Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another AIR 2005 SC 7521 4 + / .) E. * !

1 ""4 + <4 7 6 " A H 6 " % 6 %&

6 % " . %

B " " &" %"" "%

& & 3 #"

& &# 6 %" . ="" ! %" & " &#

/ " (%

6 % " .

B % " .

& " &% " 6 % %! . ( 6 "%HB " "

#H "#%

"# 6 % F F %

&# 6 %) #& " % &# 6 %" F 7 6 %"F

F %! : &# 6 " F 3! %" : &# 6 % . &

6 % .

6 % . %" " %"" "). 6

* "#F%.% & " % &% ). 6 # ! %" : "&#). 6 3 " # ! & %""

&# " &F 6 % &! ' ! %""# &

&#"

8 "%

" "

&# 6 &! "

": " " %"" ) (" " &# "! &# 6 %" &

#&F 6 % ")F " 36 %"F

& % ! %" : &# 6 %" F 7 % & "" 6 %"F ! %%.

& " % &% 6 %" F

6 % 7 ""& "#% 6 %)F "

& % ! : &# "6 %)F " # & " % &% 6 % F " " #

" % & ( &!" &B ( &! " &

%%.

! %%

# " & " % &% #

" 6 % # *

7 %""

&!% " # % &% 6 %" F

6 "% %" ! %" : &# 6 % " F ! & &# #%

% #

% ! F % %% %% . 6

" 8 9 &8

",!

;

( ' (.(( 6 $ 3 " .

+. 1

+ *." @

$* +3 9

3 .

)

8 +3."

5" + 4 5" 9 ?

1 5" +" 1 A.+ +"

E. "

F $431

% .

Jora Singh

(supra) "

" !

.) "

) . "

+ 4 / 5" + 4

5" 9 @ ?

2 )" 1 A3 $

45 *." @ $*

+ 4 5"

4" +.34 8 1

"" )

Rajnish Kumar (supra)1 5 3"

3 2

2" @ .

;

$431

" 3

( 5" 1

+ ."

3 %

Rajnish Kumar (supra)

) 4

3 8 "3

9 &.) +. 5"4 <D %! "& %"" % ""% ) 1 "%& %%

! %9"C%9" !" ! % !

! % 9 ,3I* 1

% 3

) &

" %

& #

Whether the impugned notification would also be applicable on employees who had already crossed the age of 58 years, before the coming into force of the amended Rules? Issue No.3 4 3 %

"# " !

" &# #%

% &%

& "

&#' -&"8 %Bishnu Narain Misra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1965 SC 1567 % "

&&#3"% %7

The argument of the petitioners that such reduction would operate prospectively and would not be applicable to employees who have already crossed the age of 58 years, is based upon a wrong assumption that the same would result in disturbing accrued rights which already stand crystallized. The correct legal position is that the conditions of service, including the age of superannuation, do not confer an indefeasible vested right on a government servant. The State retains competence to alter them for valid reasons. The prospective nature only protects against reopening of past service records, past pay fixation etc., accrued service benefits such as salary and pension etc., which cannot be withdrawn. 7 % Kashmiri Lal (supra) " &!

) <5GG/ "

"# %

" "

! %!%

"# % %

" " "

%! ! "% ! %3"% %7

7 J0 B!8 %3

?5484 ). 6 % "

% % % 45# 44 # 1" &! <

&"" # %" &"" 45# &" %

44 7% "#

% & &# $!

A" !" @ %

"# "

& &" #

"# " ! "

& &" &B : !6 ;

(

& % % %!

%"" "" F "& % #

"C?

/ & %%

""# 2 # : &#!% &#! "

"# : ! % %%

! % 45 # D

, we hold that all such employees who have crossed the age of 58 years, shall be entitled to protection of service benefits, like salary, pension, etc. till the date of their working. However, on account of the amendment in Rule 143 coming into force on 03.02.2026, no existing employee can claim to continue till the age of 60 years.;

) "

. 3 %

Rajnish Kumar (supra)

*." @ $* ""

++"

9 +" 1 &. "

++" 2 .1 4." .

. 5" . "3 . " .

(

;

34 .

531

4 +

5 + +"

(

*&/&*/&$ "K

+ / )H IH( *+ 5"

IH(