CWP No. 3009 of 1994 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3009 of 1994 Date of Decision : 7.12.2009 Ranjit Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This judgment shall dispose of two civil writ petitions i.e. CWP No. 3009 of 1994 titled Ranjit Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & another and CWP No. 12332 of 1993 titled Davinder Kumar Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & another, as the common question of law and facts are involved. For the sake of brevity facts are being taken from CWP No. 3009 of 1994 titled Ranjit Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & another. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has challenged the impugned order Annexure P-1 i.e. the office order dated 24.2.1989 vide which the recommendations were made to change the “Daily allowance” payable to the employees leaving the head-quarter for a period beyond 8 hours subject to the condition that the distance is beyond 25 Kms. Whereas vide Annexure P-2 i.e. office order dated 5.5.1989 CWP No. 3009 of 1994 2 Annexure P-1 was modified. The Board thereafter in exercise of powers conferred upon under Section 79(O) of the Electricity (supply) Act. 1948 amended the regulations regarding grant of incidental charges / daily allowance to its employees travelling outside the head-quarter. The office orders by the Punjab State Electricity Board were challenged by the petitioner vide CWP No. 13782 of 1989. This Court while admitting that writ petition had stayed the operation of the impugned office orders and allowed the petitioner to draw travailing allowance, as per regulation 11 of 1972 till further orders. It is not in dispute that subsequently those writ petitions filed by the petitioner were dismissed and the office orders passed by the Board were upheld. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the Deputy Secretary, Finance ordered that the recovery to be made from the employees, as per rules. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that in the present case the petitioners have challenged the regulations which were subsequently framed, therefore, the case is not covered by the decision of this Court in the previous writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned regulations on the ground of these being arbitrary as it is immaterial as to whether an employee comes back earlier than 8 hours or later, as the employee in any case has to leave the head-quarter which entitles him to daily allowance. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the CWP No. 3009 of 1994 3 learned counsel for the petitioner. Once the office order stands upheld by the Division Bench of this Court there is hardly any ground to challenge the regulations, which are on better footings than the office order. It is well settled law that authority competent could do a thing can also undo it. Once the regulations have been framed by the authorities in exercise of statutory power conferred under the Electricity (supply) Act. 1948. The authority is competent to modify or change these regulations, which has been done with prospective effect. No ground is, therefore, made out to set aside the regulations Annexure P-3. No merit. Dismissed. 7.12.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE