Government Orders Can Be Implemented Immediately After Issuance But Cannot Override Or Amend Statutory Rules: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that a government order can be enforced immediately with prospective effect but cannot override or amend statutory rules.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Brij Raj Singh observed that, "A government order can be implemented immediately after its issuance, as it has a prospective operation. However, it cannot be applied retrospectively. Also, executive orders cannot override statutory rules or amend or supersede statutory provisions, which have the force of law. If an executive order is inconsistent with statutory rules, it cannot be enforced. The situation which was not visualized by the Rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India can be supplemented by issuing executive instructions under Article 162 of the Constitution. Restructuring of cadre is a phenomena, which cannot be foreseen at the time of framing of Service Rules and therefore, the cadre restructuring having taken place by virtue of power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India cannot be viewed in the light of existing Service Rules having been notified under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India."

In this case, the appellants, who were Senior Supply Inspectors in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, U.P., challenged a High Court decision that set aside a seniority list affecting their positions. Initially recruited under the 1980 Service Rules, the appellants were promoted to Senior Supply Inspector positions in 2010. In 2011, a government order merged the roles of Senior Supply Inspector and Area Rationing Officer, upgrading the pay scale as recommended by the Pay Committee, 2008.

The writ petitioners, who joined as Area Rationing Officers in 2013, challenged their placement below the Senior Supply Inspectors in a 2016 seniority list. They filed a writ petition, which led to the High Court setting aside the seniority list. The appellants argued that since the petitioners joined after the 2011 merger, they had no standing to challenge events that occurred before their entry into service. The appellants also contended that the government order merging the posts was lawful and consistent with service rules, thereby justifying their seniority over the petitioners.

The Court upheld the State Government's decision to merge the posts of Senior Supply Inspector and Area Rationing Officer, following the recommendations of the Pay Committee, 2008. The merger led to an upgrade in the pay scale and restructuring of the cadre, which was implemented through a Government Order dated June 30, 2011. This decision was within the jurisdiction of the State Government and was carried out after obtaining the necessary approvals, including amendments to the relevant service rules.

The Court also addressed the issue of seniority, emphasizing that the final seniority list, prepared on March 31, 2016, was in accordance with the rules and thus valid. The Court rejected the argument that the seniority list should be quashed based on the timing of the rule amendments, noting that the writ petitioners who were directly recruited in 2013 did not have a valid claim to seniority over those who benefitted from the merger in 2011. The Court set aside the earlier judgment that had quashed the seniority list and promotion orders, concluding that the seniority list prepared by the department was just and proper. Consequently, the Court allowed the special appeals, reinstating the seniority list and promotion orders as they stood.

Cause Title: State Of U.P vs Shushil Mishra And 18 Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:55815-DB)

Click here to read/download the Judgment