Rights Already Accrued Cannot Be Taken Away Through Subsequent Amendments Having No Retrospective Effect: MP HC
Madhya Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi held that the Academic Grade Pay (AGP) benefits once granted, cannot be taken away by subsequent amendments that only have prospective effect. The court explained that the new AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education) Regulation, 2016, cannot be used to withdraw AGP benefits granted under the AICTE...
Madhya Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi held that the Academic Grade Pay (AGP) benefits once granted, cannot be taken away by subsequent amendments that only have prospective effect. The court explained that the new AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education) Regulation, 2016, cannot be used to withdraw AGP benefits granted under the AICTE Regulation, 2010. Thus, the court directed the state to restore all benefits with 8% interest.
Background
Santosh Bhalave, Basant Ram Maravi, Yogesh Chile, and Deepti Hanwat were all employed as lecturers. As per AICTE Regulations, 2010, lecturers without a PhD or master's degree were eligible for AGP benefits of about Rs.6000, if they had completed 6 years of service. In July 2017, all three lecturers were granted this benefit
However, in September 2017, the Principal of the institution, withdrew these benefits. This was based on a new AICTE notification, 2016, which held that lecturers can only be eligible for AGP benefits after nine years of service (as opposed to 6). The Commissioner of Technical Education upheld this order. Aggrieved, the lecturers filed a writ petition.
Arguments
Representing the lecturers, Mr. Praveen Verma argued that the benefits had been correctly granted under the 2010 AICTE Regulations. He submitted that the clarification in the 2016 notification cannot be applied retrospectively on the lecturers. He argued that benefits once granted cannot be withdrawn based on any subsequent clarification.
Representing the state, Mr. Girish Kekre argued that even though the 2016 notification only applied prospectively, it still affected the lecturers, as they had completed 6 years only after this circular was issued. He argued that the material date is when the right matured, not when it accrued. Since the right only matured after the 2016 notification, the conditions of the 2016 notifications apply. Thus, he argued, that the lecturers were not eligible for AGP benefits.
Court's Findings
Firstly, the court noted that the 2016 notification only has prospective effects, as already determined in W.P. No. 20653/2016 (Dr. D.R. Dubey and others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others). Further, the court cited Gelus Ram Sahu and others vs. Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh (2020) 4 SCC 484, where the Supreme Court had held that the 2016 notifiaction cannot be applied retrospective and cannot affect any appointments made before its issuance.
Secondly, the court held that the benefits accrued under the older 2010 notification cannot be cancelled simply because they matured after the implementation of the 2016 notification. The court held that rights already accrued cannot be taken away by subsequent amendments or clarifications that have no retrospective effect.
Thirdly, citing Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies (2022) 4 SCC 363, the court ruled that any amendment that retrospectively takes away the benefits already available under other rules, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Thus, the court held that the AGP benefits could not be taken away on the basis of the 2016 Notification.
Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to restore all AGP benefits granted. The court also ordered interest at 8%.
Decided on: 09-05-2025
Case No. W.P. No. 13847 of 2023
Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. Praveen Verma
Counsel for the respondents: Mr