The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that benefits already granted under earlier regulations cannot be withdrawn through later amendments that do not have retrospective effect. Justice Sanjay Dwivedi, in a judgment dated May 9, 2025, emphasized that rights accrued under the AICTE Regulation, 2010 cannot be invalidated by the AICTE Regulation, 2016, which operates only prospectively.
This decision came in response to a set of writ petitions filed by four lecturers—Santosh Bhalave, Basant Ram Maravi, Yogesh Chile, and Deepti Hanwat—who had been granted Academic Grade Pay (AGP) benefits under the 2010 AICTE norms after completing six years of service.
However, just months later in September 2017, the Principal of their institution withdrew these benefits citing the AICTE Regulation of 2016, which stipulates a nine-year requirement for AGP benefits in cases where the lecturer lacks a Ph.D. or postgraduate degree. The lecturers challenged this move through multiple petitions.
“The benefit was legally granted under the 2010 notification. It cannot be cancelled due to a clarificatory change brought in 2016,” argued Shri Praveen Verma, the petitioners' counsel.
The State, represented by Shri Girish Kekre, maintained that while the 2016 regulation is prospective, it applied because the lecturers had completed six years of service only after its enforcement. The State argued that the determining factor was when the right matured, not when it accrued.
However, the Court decisively rejected this argument.
“The 2016 notification has no retrospective effect and cannot nullify benefits already accrued under the 2010 notification,” stated Justice Dwivedi.
Citing several legal precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Gelus Ram Sahu v. Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh [(2020) 4 SCC 484], the Court confirmed that appointments and benefits governed by older rules remain valid even after newer rules come into force, provided the newer rules are not explicitly retrospective.
Read Also:- Justice Suresh Kumar Kait’s Remarkable Journey: From Labourer to Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s verdict in Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies [(2022) 4 SCC 363], where it was held that any retrospective amendment that strips employees of already accrued benefits violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
“An amendment with retrospective effect that takes away a benefit already granted would violate constitutional protections,” the Court observed.
As a result, the Court set aside the orders dated 11.09.2017, 16.08.2022, and 21.04.2023 that had withdrawn the AGP benefits. It directed the State to restore the benefits as originally granted on 01.07.2017 and pay the arrears within three months along with 8% interest.
Case No. W.P. No. 13847 of 2023
