Clarificatory orders are not retrospective when they withdraw accrued benefits; earlier increment entitlements remained protected.

A later Government Order could not be treated as a mere clarification where it reduced lecturers' accrued incentive increments from six to four; an instrument is substantive, not clarificatory, if it withdraws an existing benefit or alters the legal position. The earlier scheme remained applicable to lecturers already placed in selection grade before 29 March 2001, and the later order could not operate retrospectively to deny the additional increments already earned under the earlier Government Order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the subsequent Government Order dated 29 March 2001 was merely clarificatory of the earlier Government Order dated 21 December 1999 and could therefore be applied retrospectively so as to deny two advance increments to lecturers already placed in the selection grade before that date.

Analysis: The earlier Government Order entitled a lecturer with a Ph.D. at the time of recruitment to four advance increments and, on placement in selection grade, to two additional increments. The later order restricted that benefit for lecturers who had already received Ph.D.-based increments at recruitment, but a provision described as clarificatory is not automatically retrospective. Whether an instrument is truly clarificatory depends on its nature and effect, and a measure that withdraws an existing benefit or alters the legal position is substantive rather than explanatory. The later order reduced the entitlement of a class of lecturers from six increments to four and would take away a benefit that had already accrued under the earlier scheme.

Conclusion: The subsequent Government Order was a substantive amendment and not a mere clarification. It could not operate retrospectively against lecturers placed in the selection grade before 29 March 2001, who remained entitled to the benefits under the earlier Government Order.

---