Subsequent service-rule amendments cannot retrospectively impose new conditions for withholding accrued increments.

The petitioner participated in the selection process for Group Instructor pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission on 20.07.2019.

He was declared successful on 31.05.2022 and was offered appointment on 23.12.2022 under the Haryana Skill Development and Industrial Training Department Field Offices (Group-C) Service Rules, 2013 (“2013 Rules”).

Since he was required to serve a notice period with his previous employer, the petitioner obtained an extension of time and joined the respondent-Department on 03.07.2023.

In the meantime, the Haryana Skill Development Department and Industrial Training Department Regional Office (Group-C) Service (Amendment) Rules, 2023 (“2023 Rules”) were notified on 26.05.2023.

The petitioner’s annual increment due on 01.07.2024 was withheld for non-qualification of the SETC.

He subsequently cleared the examination on 23.07.2025 and was granted the increment notionally from 01.07.2024 and actually from 01.07.2025.

He challenged the withholding of actual arrears and consequential monetary benefits for the period from 01.07.2024 to 30.06.2025.

1. Whether the 2023 Rules could be applied to the petitioner so as to require him to qualify the SETC as a condition for grant of his annual increment, when the advertisement and appointment letter contained no such condition?

2. Whether the respondents were justified in withholding the petitioner’s actual monetary arrears and consequential benefits for the period from 01.07.2024 to 30.06.2025?

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India in examining the legality of the respondents’ action.

It considered the 2013 Rules governing the petitioner’s appointment and the 2023 amendment, particularly Rule 5(6), which required directly recruited employees to qualify the SETC and barred increments or promotions during the period of non-qualification.

The Court also applied the principle that a subsequent amendment to service rules cannot retrospectively impose a new and disadvantageous eligibility condition upon a candidate whose selection process had been completed and appointment offered under the earlier regime, absent clear legal authority.

The Court further held that such retrospective and adverse treatment was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The petitioner’s selection followed the 2019 advertisement, and his appointment was offered on 23.12.2022, before the 2023 Rules were notified on 26.05.2023.

Neither the advertisement nor the appointment letter prescribed SETC qualification as a condition for receiving an increment.

Although Clause 13 of the appointment letter referred to the 2013 Rules and future rules, the Court held that this clause could not justify retrospectively imposing a new condition after the selection process and appointment offer had concluded.

The petitioner’s joining on 03.07.2023 resulted from an extension granted due to his existing notice obligations and could not alter the legal regime applicable to his selection and appointment.

Since the petitioner also appeared for and cleared the SETC at the first available opportunity, withholding the increment for the intervening period was held to be arbitrary and legally unsustainable.

The Court held that the SETC condition under the 2023 Rules could not be retrospectively applied to deny the petitioner’s annual increment.

The respondents were directed to release the actual monetary arrears of the increment with consequential benefits from the due date, i.e., 01.07.2024, in terms of Annexure P-13.

The arrears were directed to carry interest at 6% per annum, calculated from 01.07.2024 until the date of actual payment, rather than the 12% interest claimed by the petitioner.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.