Ananad Kumar Bohare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided on: 24-03-2026

<div> 1 WP-7469-2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT th ON THE 24 OF MARCH, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 7469 of 2019 ANAND KUMAR BOHARE Versus STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: Petitioner is present in person. Shri Prabhat Pateriya – Government Advocate for respondents/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ORDER The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs: “(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed; (ii) That, by issuance of the writ order or direction directing the respondents to extend the benefit of revised Grade Pay Rs.5400/- to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.2006 and Clause 4 of order Annexure P/2 may kindly be quashed/struck off the petitioner is also entitled for consequential benefits as the petitioner has been superannuated on 30.4.2017 so the pension and pensionary benefits may kindly be directed to be revised by extending the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- from 1.1.2006, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM 2 WP-7469-2019 Rs.6600/- from 1.4.2006 and Rs.7600/- from 1.7.2014 and the outstanding arrears may kindly be directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. (iii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the third time scale to the petitioner from 1.7.2014 Rs.7600/-. and also granted the grade pay of (iv) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to refix the pension of the petitioner after 1.1.2006. (iv) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Petitioner submitted that relief pertaining to third time pay scale has already been extended to the petitioner, therefore, he has confined his relief only to grant the benefit of revised Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- to him w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and to quash Clause 4 of order dated 07.06.2018 (Annexure P-2). 3. Petitioner submitted that petitioner has retired from services in the month of April, 2017 from the post of Dy. Director Prosecution. Initially, petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, Class-II at Dewas. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.03.2007, petitioner was promoted on the post of District Public Prosecution Officer. He was further promoted on the post of Dy. Director Prosecution vide order dated 22.09.2012. During the service th period, 6 Pay Commission came in force w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and as th per 6 Pay Commission, petitioner's pay was fixed at pay Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM 3 WP-7469-2019 Rs.16930+4200 = 21,130/- in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 + Grade Pay 4200/-. 4. It is further submitted that as per Madhya Pradesh Pay Revision Rules, 2009 (in short “Rules, 2009”), all the Government Servants are required to get the benefit w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and Rule 14 provides that the Rules, 2009 is having overriding effect to other orders and submitted that as per Rule 15 of Rules, 2009, relaxation which is not beneficial for Government Servants, that cannot be relaxed or suspended and without considering the aforesaid aspect and contrary to Rules, 2009, a Committee has been constituted and as per committee recommendations, order dated 07.06.2018 has been issued, by which, as per Clause 4, the benefit of pay scale has been extended w.e.f. 01.01.2016 instead of 01.01.2006 and the benefit of such revised grade pay was sanctioned from 01.01.2016 and actual arrears were sanctioned to be given from 01.07.2018. Petitioner further submitted that the Rules, 2009 came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and contrary to aforesaid, the order dated 07.06.2018 has been issued by the respondent and further submitted that Rule 15 of the Rules, 2009 provides that no order, which is detrimental to the benefit of employee or class of employee, shall be passed and Clause 4 of the impugned order is effected on petitioner's pay and it is not beneficiary/profitable to the petitioner, therefore, that cannot be issued and as the Rules, 2009 is having overriding effect over any other Orders/Rules, which may be passed by the State Government and further submitted that the Rules have statutory force and, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM 4 WP-7469-2019 therefore, cannot be overruled by an administrative order. 5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate submitted that the State Government, Finance Department, had accepted the recommendations of the State Pay Commission constituted under the chairmanship of Shri A.K. Agrawal, retired IAS, by which the pay of certain categories of offices have been revised and upgraded and further submitted that Clause/Para 4 of the aforesaid order, is having no contradiction with the Rules, 2009 and order dated 07.06.2018 is regarding removing the anomaly in the pay scale of certain cadres of employees of State Government and by the aforesaid order, recommendation of Shri A.K. Agrawal Committee was accepted by the State Government and those cadres have been granted the th upgraded pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016 in the 7 Pay Commission Pay Scale and further submitted that upgraded pay scale benefits are extended to the cadres given in the list w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and cash benefit of the same is admissible to those employees w.e.f. 01.07.2018 and in terms of this upgraded pay scale, pay fixation will be done in the pay scale prescribed by the M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 2017 and between the period of 01.01.2016 to 30.06.2018 notional fixation will be done and cash benefit will be given from 01.07.2018 and submitted that the said pay commission was constituted under the Chairmanship of Shri A.K. Agrawal on 23.02.2008, i.e., much before the Rules, 2009 came into force (Annexure R-2) and submitted that date of enforcement of fixation (revised pay) is not from the date of petitioner's choice while the same is the domain of the State. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM 5 WP-7469-2019 6. Heard both the parties and perused the record. 7. It is noted that the petitioner has retired in April 2017 from the post of Deputy Director Prosecution, having initially been appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor and subsequently promoted to higher posts during service. The petitioner’s pay was fixed under the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006. It is the contention of the petitioner that under the Madhya Pradesh Pay Revision Rules, 2009, which came into force from 01.01.2006, he is entitled to the revised pay benefits from that date. The Rules are stated to have overriding effect, and any relaxation or order detrimental to the interest of employees is impermissible. However, by order dated 07.06.2018, based on committee recommendations, the benefit of revised pay scale was granted from 01.01.2016, with arrears payable from 01.07.2018. 8. Clause/Para 4 of the impugned order dated 07.06.2018 reads as under:- “4. 01-01-2016 उपर्युक्त वेतन उननरन ददिननांक सवे 01-07-2018 ( 2018 लनगू कर नगदि लनभ ददिननांक अगसत म ) 01-01-2016 दिवेर सवे ददिरन जनवे। ददिननांक कको उपर्युक्त अनरसनर . . , दिवेर गवेड वेतन कवे आधनर पर म प वेतन परनररीक्षण ननरम 2017 01-01-2016 म वेतन ननधनर्युरण दकरन जनवेगन। ददिननांक सवे 30-06-2018 तक ककी अवनध कवे नलरवे कनलपननक वेतन वृदद्विरय " दिरी जनरमगगी। 9. The said order is contrary to the statutory Rules, 2009. It is argued that an administrative order cannot override statutory rules, and any such action affecting the petitioner adversely is unsustainable Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM 6 WP-7469-2019 in law. 10. Rules 1 and 2 of the Rules, 2009 read as under:- “1. (1) सनांकक्षप्त ननम और पनरनांभ इन ननरमय कन सनांकक्षप्त , 2009 ननम मधरपदिवेश वेतन परनररीक्षण ननरम है। (2) 1 , 2006 ये ननियम जनिवरर । सये प्रववत्त समझये जजायेग 2. शनसककीर सवेवकय कवे पवगर्यु कजनकय रवे ननरम लनगू हकोगम , इन ननरमय द्विनरन रन इनकवे अधगीन अनरथन उपबनांध कवे नसवनर ये ननियम उनि समसस्त शजासककीय सवयेककों कको लजाग हकोग जको रजाजय सरकजार कये ननियम बनिजानिये संबसंधधी ननियसंत्रण कये अधधीनि : आस्तये ह :- रवे ननरम लनगू नहरीनां हकोगम i. , उन वरकक्तरको पर जको पगूणर्युकननलक सवेवन रकोजनन मवे नहरीनां , है ⅱ. , उन वरकक्तरय पर कजनहम मननसक आधनर ककी अपवेक्षन अनर पकनर सवे भरगतनन दकरन जनतन है। उनमवे वम वरकक्त , भगी शननमल है कजनहम कवेवल मनतननरपनत दिर पर भरगतनन , दकरन जनतन है iii. , उन वरकक्तरय पर जको अनरबनध पर कनर्यु कर रहवे हैं। iv. उन वरकक्तरय पर जको सवेवनननवृकत्ति कवे बनदि परननः सरकनररी , ननौकररी मवे लगनरवे गरवे हैं v. अकखिल भनरतगीर सवेवन कवे वेतनमननय मवे वेतन पननवे वनलवे , वरकक्त vi. कवश्वकवदनलर अनरदिनन आरकोग और अकखिल भनरतगीर पनौदकोनगककी नशक्षन पररषद् कवे वेतनमननय पर सनांदिनर पननवे ; वनलवे वरकक्त और vii. उन दकसगी अनर वगर्यु रन शवेणगी कवे वरकक्तरय पर कजनहवे , , मधरपदिवेश कवे रनजरपनल आदिवेश द्विनरन सनरवे कनरर्यों सवे अथवन इन ननरमय म ननदहत पनवधननय सवे कवशवेष रूप सवे ननषकननसत करतवे हय । Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM 7 WP-7469-2019 - (V) सस्पषषरकरण खिणड कवे परकोजन कवे नलए परननः ननरकोकजत पमशनभकोगगी कवे अनतगर्युत वे परननः ननरकोकजत नहरीनां आएगम जको पनतकर रन अशक्त पमशन पनप्त करतवे थवे और ऐसवे सहैननक पमशनभकोगगी जको पनतकर रन अशक्त पमशन पनप्त करतवे थवे और जको रनजर सरकनर कवे ननरम बनननवे कवे ननरनांतण कवे अधगीन परननः ननरकोकजत हैं और कवदमनन वेतनमनन म वेतन आहररत कर रहम हैं। ” 11. Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules, 2009 read as under:- 14. - ननियमकों कजा अधयजारकोहर प्रभजाव उनि मजामलकों मग जहजाह , वयेस्तनि इनि ननियमकों दवजारजा ववननियममस्त हकोस्तजा ह वहजासं मगल ननियम स्तथजा ककनहर अनय ननियमकों कये उस्पबनध उस सधीमजा स्तक लजाग निहरसं हकोंगये जहजाह स्तक कक वये इनि ननियमकों सये असंगस्त हको । 15. - , मशथथल करनिये ककी शककस्त रनजर सरकनर शनसककीर सवेवकय कवे रन शनसककीर सवेवकय कवे पवगर्यु कवे मनमलम म इन ननरमय कवे उपबनधय म सवे दकसगी भगी उपबनध कन पवतर्युन ऐसगी ररीनत म और ऐसगी सगीमन तक नशनथल रन ननलनांकबत कर सकवेगगी जहैसन दक उसवे लकोकदहत मवे नरनरसनांगत और सनमरनपगूणर्यु : रन आवशरक रन समगीचगीन पतगीत हको स्परनस्तन ऐसजा मशथथलरकरण यजा ननिलसंबनि जको यथजाकसथनस्त ककसधी शजासककीय सयेवक यजा शजासककीय सयेवककों कये ककसधी प्रवगर्ग कये , " मलए अलजाभप्रद हको प्रवनस्तर्गस्त निहरसं ककयजा जजाएगजा । 12. As per Rules, 2009, rules is applicable on all the government servants of State Government and that Rules, 2009 came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and as per proviso of Rule 15 and as the Rule, 2009 is having overriding effect upon any other law, petitioner is entitled to the benefit of revision of pay rules w.e.f. 01.01.2006. 13. It is very settled preposition of law that when the action of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM 8 WP-7469-2019 State or its instrumentalites is not as per the Rules/statutory provisions, the Court must exercise its jurisdiction to declare such an act to be illegal and invalid. In the case of Sirsi Municipality Vs. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis (AIR 1973 SC 855) , the Supreme Court has held that “the ratio is that the rules or the regulations are binding on the authorities”. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has held as under:- “The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sukhdeo Singh and Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Anr. (1975 AIR 1331) , has observed as under: The statutory authorities cannot deviate from the conditions of service. Any deviation will be enforced by legal sanction of declaration by Courts to invalidate actions in violation of rules and regulations. The existence of rules and regulations under statute is to ensure regular conduct with a distinctive attitude to that conduct as a standard. The statutory regulations in the cases under consideration give the employees a statutory status and impose restrictions on the employer and the employee with no option to vary the conditions.... In cases of statutory bodies there is no personal element whatsoever because of the impersonal character of statutory bodies... the element of public employment or service and the support of statute require observance of rules and regulations. Failure to observe requirements by statutory bodies is enforced by courts by declaring (action) in violation of rules and regulations to be void. This Court has repeatedly observed that whenever a man's rights are affected by decision taken under statutory powers, the Court would presume the existence of a duty Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM 9 WP-7469-2019 to observe the rules of natural justice and compliance with rules and regulations imposed by statute." (Emphasis added) 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court has considered time and again the scope of issuing the executive orders. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore reported in (1967) ILLJ 698 SC , has observed as under:- “It is hardly necessary to mention that if there is a statutory rule or an Act on the matter, the executive must abide by thai Act or the Rules and it cannot, in exercise of its executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution, ignore or act contrary to that Rule or the Act.” 15 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (1968) IILLJ 830 SC , has observed as under:- “It is true that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory Rules by administrative instruction, but if the Rules are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill-up the gap and supplement the rule and issue instructions not inconsistent with the Rules already framed." (Emphasis added). 16. The law referred to above has consistently been followed and it is settled proposition of law that the Authority cannot issue the orders/office memorandum/executive instructions in contravention of the statutory Rules. However, instructions can be issued only to supplement the statutory rules but not to supplant it. ( Vide Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM 10 WP-7469-2019 Commissioner of Income Tax v. A. Raman & Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC); Union of India & Ors v. Majji Jangammya and Ors., [1977] 2 SCR 28; Ramendra Singh and Ors. v. Jagdish Prasad and Ors. [1984] 2 SCR 598; P.D. Agrawal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. [1987] 3 SCR 427; Beoper Sahayak (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Nath [1987] 3 SCR 496; Paluru Ramkrishananiah and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1989) IILLJ 47SC; and Comptroller & Auditor General of India and Ors. v. Mohan Lal Mehrotra and Ors. (1992) I LLJ 335 SC .” 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Naga People' Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 1998 SC 465 , has held that the executive instructions are binding provided the same have been issued to fill up the gap between the statutory provisions and are consistent with the said provisions. 18. In C. Rangaswamaiah and Ors. v. Karnataka Lokayukta and Ors. reported in [1998] 3 SCR 837 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that executive instructions can be passed even for creating the post so long as they remain consistent with law/rules. In Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Yadaorao Jagannath Kumbhera reported in AIR 1999 SC 3084 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in absence of statutory rules, appointments can be made on the basis of executive instructions but there is no scope of deviation of rules, if the same exist. 19. In light of the aforesaid, it can be safely gathered that executive instructions cannot amend or supercede the statutory rules or add Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM 11 WP-7469-2019 something therein. The orders cannot be issued in contravention of the statutory rules for the reason that an administrative instruction is not a statutory rule nor does it have any force of law; while statutory Rules have full force of law as held by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Ors. v. Babu Ram Upadhyaya reported in 1961 CriL J773 ; and State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone etc. reported in [1981] 2 SCR 742 . 20. In the case of Union of India v. Sri Somesundram Vishwanath reported in AIR 1988 SC 2255 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that if there is a conflict between the executive instruction and the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Rules will prevail. Similarly, if there is a conflict in the rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and the law, the law will prevail. 21. In the case of Ram Ganesh Tripathi v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1997 SC 1446 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a similar controversy and held that any executive instruction/order which runs counter to or is inconsistent with the statutory rules cannot be enforced, rather deserves to be quashed, being dehors the rules. 22. The Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 2000 (2) WLN 574 has taken a similar view relying upon the aforesaid judgments and has held that executive instructions cannot supercede the statutory rules. In the present case, Rules have been framed in exercise of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and executive instructions Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM 12 WP-7469-2019 issued by the Finance Department under the signatures of the Secretary, Finance Department will no way supercede the statutory provision on the subject. 23. The Apex Court in the case of The Distt. Registrar, Palghat and Others Vs. M. B. Koyakutty and Others reported in (1979) 2 SCC 150 has held that the executive instructions should be subservient to the statutory provisions. Paragraph No.22 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “22. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that if the statutory rules framed by the Governor or any law enacted by the State Legislature under Article 309 is silent on any particular point, the Government can fill up that gap and supplement the rule by issuing administrative instructions not inconsistent with the statutory provisions already framed or enacted. The Executive instructions in order to be valid must run subservient to the statutory provisions. In the instant case, however, it could not be said that there was a gap or a void in the statutory provisions in the matter of promotion from the cadre of Lower Division Clerks to that of Upper Division Clerks.” 24. The Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. M/s. G. S. Dall and Flour Mills reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 150 has held that the executive instruction can supplement a statute or cover areas to which the statute does not extend. But they cannot run contrary to statutory provisions or whittle down their effect. 25. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM 13 WP-7469-2019 Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal reported in (2013) 16 SCC 147 has again dealt with the executive instructions. Paragraphs No.58, 59 and 60 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “58. A Constitution Bench of this Court while dealing with a similar issue in respect of executive instructions in Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1910 , held: “7. ... It is true that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory Rules by administrative instruction, but if the Rules are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill-up the gap and supplement the rule and issue instructions not inconsistent with the Rules already framed.” 59. The law laid down above has consistently been followed and it is a settled proposition of law that an authority cannot issue orders/office memorandum/ executive instructions in contravention of the statutory Rules. However, instructions can be issued only to supplement the statutory rules but not to supplant it. Such instructions should be subservient to the statutory provisions. ( Vide: Union of India & Ors. v. Majji Jangammayya & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 757; P. D. Aggarwal & Ors. v. State of U. P. & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1676; Paluru Ramkrishnaiah & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1990 SC 166; C. Rangaswamaiah & Ors. v. Karnataka Lokayukta & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2496; and JAC of Airlines Pilots Association of India & Ors. v. The Director General of Civil Aviation & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 2220 ). 60. Similarly, a Constitution Bench of this Court, in Naga People’s Movement of Humant Rights v. Union of India., AIR 1998 SC 431, held that the executive instructions have binding force provided the same have been issued to fill up the gap between the statutory provisions and are not inconsistent with the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM 14 WP-7469-2019 said provisions.” It has been held that the executive instructions are subservient to the statutory provisions and can be issued only to supplement the statutory rules and not to supplant them. 26. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Mahendra Singh and Others reported in (2007) 13 SCC 606 , it has been held by the Apex Court that executive instructions cannot prevail over the statutory rules. A similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of DDA and Others Vs. Joginder S. Monga and Others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 297 and it has been held that executive instructions if they are in conflict with statutory provision, the statutory provision will prevail and in absence any conflict both will prevail. 27. In the case of Accountant General, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. S. K. Dubey and Another reported in (2012) 4 SCC 578 , the apex Court in paragraph No.31, 33 and 39 has held as under:- “31. Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the executive power of a State extends to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws. This is what is provided in Article 162 of the Constitution. In other words, the executive power of the State Executive is coextensive with that of the State Legislature. 33. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Lalit Mohan Deb (1973) 3 SCC 862 (para 9; pg. 867) said : "9. It is true that there are no statutory rules regulating the selection of Assistants to the selection grade. But the absence of such rules is no bar to the Administration giving instructions regarding promotion to the higher grade as long Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM 15 WP-7469-2019 as such instructions are not inconsistent with any rule on the subject..........".In Union of India and another v. Central Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Service (CE&MES) Group 'A' (Direct Recruits) Association, CPWD and others16, this Court held that the executive instructions could fill in gaps not covered by rules but such instructions cannot be in derogation of the statutory rules. 39. I am of the considered view that there is no difference in the legal position in a case where power conferred on the State Government for framing rules has been exercised but such rules remain silent on certain aspects although it had power to make rules with regard to those aspects and in the situation where no rules have been framed in exercise of the power conferred on it, insofar as executive power of the State is concerned. The power that vests in the State Government in Section 30(2) to carry out the provisions contained in Section 16(2) does not take away its executive power to make provision for the subjects covered in Section 16(2) for which no rules have been framed by it. The exercise of such power by the State Government, obviously, must not be inconsistent with the constitutional provisions or statutory provision in Section 16(2) or the State Rules framed by it. In the present case, the exercise of power by the State Government by issuance of the order dated April 5, 2002 does not suffer from any such vice.” In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court has held that executive instructions can fill in gaps not covered by rules but such instruction cannot be in derogation of the rules. 28. The Apex Court in the case of Joint Committee of Air Line Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM 16 WP-7469-2019 Pilots' Association of India (ALPAI) and Others Vs. Director General of Civil Aviation and Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435 in paragraphs No.17 and 20 to 23 has held as under:- “17. The CAR 2007 is neither a statute nor a subordinate legislation. Provisions contained in Section 4A, 5 & 6A of the Act 1934 and Rules 42A & 133A of the Rules 1937, make it evident that the same are merely executive instructions which can be termed as "special directions". The executive instruction can supplement a statute or cover areas to which the statute does not extend, but it cannot run contrary to the statutory provisions or whittle down their effect. (Vide: State of M. P. & Anr. v. M/s. G.S. Dall & Flour Mills (1992) supp. (1) SCC 150. 20. Thus, an executive order is to be issued keeping in view the rules and executive business, though the executive order may not have a force of law but it is issued to provide guidelines to all concerned, who are bound by it. 21. In Union of India & Anr. v. Amrik Singh & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 2316, this Court examined the scope of executive instructions issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General for making the appointments under the provisions of Indian Audit and Accounts Department (Administrative Officers, Accounts Officers and Audit Officers) Recruitment Rules, 1964, and came to the conclusion that the Comptroller and Auditor General of India had necessary competence to issue departmental instructions on matters of conditions of service of persons serving in Department, being the Head of the Department, in spite of the statutory rules existing in this regard. The Court came to the conclusion that an enabling provision is there and in view thereof, the CAG had exercised his powers and issued the instructions which are not inconsistent with the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM 17 WP-7469-2019 statutory rules, the same are binding for the reason that the provision in executive instructions has been made with the required competence by the Comptroller and Auditor General. 22. Thus, it is evident from the above that executive instructions which are issued for guidance and to implement the scheme of the Act and do not have the force of law, can be issued by the competent authority and altered, replaced and substituted at any time. The law merely prohibits the issuance of a direction, which is not in consonance with the Act or the statutory rules applicable thereunder. 23. This Court in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Hirendra Pal Singh etc., JT (2010) 13 SC 610 , considered a large number of judgments particularly in Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid & Co. v. State of Madras & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 928; B. N. Tewari v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1430; Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 515; West U.P. Sugar Mills Association & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 948; Zile Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 1; and State of Kerala & Anr. v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Kerala State Unit & Ors., (2009) 8 SCC 46 , and came to the conclusion that once the old rule has been substituted by the new rule, it stands obliterated, thus ceases to exist and under no circumstance, can it be revived in case the new rule is held to be invalid and struck down by the Court, though position would be different in case a statutory amendment by the Legislature, is held to be bad for want of legislative competence. In that situation, the repealed statutory provisions would revive automatically.” The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has held that executive instructions cannot run contrary to statutory provision or Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM 18 WP-7469-2019 whittle down their effect. 29. In the case of S.Sivaguru Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in (2013) 7 SCC 335 , the Apex Court while again dealing with executive instructions has held that executive instruction cannot supplant statutory rules. 30. In the case of Lok Prahari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 389, the Apex Court in paragraphs No.39 and 44 has held as under:- “39. There is one more and most important reason for which the 1997 Rules cannot be said to be legal. The 1981 Act deals with the salaries and perquisites to be given to all the Ministers, including the Chief Ministers. The said provisions are statutory, but the 1997 Rules are not statutory and they are only in the nature of executive instructions. If there is any variance in statutory provision and executive instruction, the statutory provision would always prevail. This is a very well-known principle and no further discussion is required on the subject. When the 1981 Act enables the Chief Minister to have residential accommodation only during his tenure and for 15 days after completion of his tenure, the 1997 Rules providing for an accommodation for life to the Chief Minister cannot be said to be legal and valid. For this sole reason, validity of the 1997 Rules cannot be upheld. 44. There cannot be any dispute that when the rules and regulations or executive institutions are contrary to any statutory provision, the statutory provision would prevail and the rules or executive institutions, so far as they are contrary to the statutory provisions, would fail.” Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM 19 WP-7469-2019 In the aforesaid case, it has been held that in case executive instructions are contrary to any statutory rules, statutory provision shall prevail and the executive instructions, so far as they are contrary to the statutory provision, would fail. 31. The Apex Court in the case of Narinder S. Chadha and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others reported in (2014) 15 SCC 689 has declared the executive instructions as ultra vires which were contrary to the statutory provisions. Thus, it can be safely gathered that executive instructions which are not in consonance with the statutory provision are void ab initio. 32. The Hon'ble Justice G.P. Singh in “Principle of Statutory Interpretation (Tenth Edition)”, while dealing with delegated legislation has dealt with circulars and notifications which are issued by governments and has observed that circulars or instructions which have no statutory backing do not amount to law and cannot dilute or override the effect of a constitutional or statutory provision. (See: Municipal Corporation of Amritsar v. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Amritsar Division, (2004) 3 SCC 92; Rampal Kundu Vs. Kamal Sharma, (2004) 2 SCC 759) . 33. The Government of M.P. in exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India framed the Madhya Pradesh Vetan Punrikshan Niyam, 2009 and made it applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2006 for its government employee and the Rules, 2009 is applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2006, therefore, by not granting the benefit of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM 20 WP-7469-2019 th 6 Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and the benefit granted w.e.f. 01.01.2016 is arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable and it is admitted that the petitioner is a Government Servant and once the benefit of the Rules, 2009 has been extended to some of the employees w.e.f. 01.01.2006, then the petitioner being the State Government employee is also entitled to get the benefit of the Rules, 2009 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 at par with the other State Government employees and the State Government could not have taken arbitrary decision not to grant same from the same date, from which, the other State Government employees were granted and, therefore, Clause 4 of the order dated 07.06.2018 (Annexure P-2) is contrary to the Rules, 2009 and the petitioner cannot be discriminated on the basis of administrative instructions dated 07.06.2018 (Clause 4) and the State Government has not mentioned any reasonable ground for granting the said benefit w.e.f. 01.01.2016 instead of 01.01.2006. 34. The said decision is arbitrary and discriminatory and also violative of the doctrine of "Equal Pay for Equal Work". In the case of Surinder Singh and Anr. vs. Engineer-in-chief CPWD and Ors. reported in (1986) 1 SCC 639 , the Court held that the daily wage workers of CPWD are entitled to the wages equal to regular and permanent employees as they are discharging identical duties. In the case of Randhir Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1982) SCC 618 , the Court held that the grant of lower scale pay to the Delhi Police Force then those in Delhi administration is unreasonable classification and not in consonance with the principle Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM 21 WP-7469-2019 of "Equal Pay for Equal Work". The similar view was reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors. reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 that the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" applies to the temporary employees and they cannot be discriminated in respect of the entitlement to minimum regular pay as they are discharging the same duties as discharged by regular employees against sanctioned post. 35. In view of the aforesaid, the decision of the respondent granting the said benefit w.e.f. 01.01.2016 (different date from which the State Government employee has been granted, i.e., 01.01.2006) is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 36. Consequently, Clause 4 of the order dated 07.06.2018 (Annexure P-2) is hereby set aside and respondents are directed to give the benefit of the Rules, 2009 to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2006 including grant of revised Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- and all consequential benefits, including revision of pension and payment of arrears within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If the benefit has not been extended to the petitioner within the aforesaid period of three months, then the petitioner is entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of entitlement till actual payment. 37. With aforesaid, petition is allowed and disposed of. (ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT) JUDGE Abhi Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/26/2026 5:56:33 AM</div>