Executive instructions cannot override statutory rules or postpone the effective date of pay revision benefits.

The Petitioner, retired as Deputy Director Prosecution in April 2017, challenged Clause 4 of an administrative order dated 07.06.2018.

Following the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission, the Madhya Pradesh Pay Revision Rules, 2009 (“Rules, 2009”) were enacted, coming into force retrospectively from 01.01.2006.

While the Rules, 2009 mandated pay revision from 2006, the State Government issued an administrative order on 07.06.2018, which, under Clause 4, limited the benefit of the revised Grade Pay of ₹5400/- to take effect only from 01.01.2016, with actual cash benefits from 01.07.2018.

The Petitioner contended that statutory rules possess an overriding effect over administrative instructions and that the deferment of benefits was detrimental and discriminatory.

1. Whether an administrative instruction or executive order can override or operate in derogation of statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

2. Whether Clause 4 of the order dated 07.06.2018, which deferred the financial benefits of pay revision, is arbitrary and violative of the Madhya Pradesh Pay Revision Rules, 2009.

The court primarily applied the Madhya Pradesh Pay Revision Rules, 2009, specifically Rule 1 (commencement from 01.01.2006), Rule 14 (overriding effect over inconsistent rules/orders), and Rule 15 (prohibition of relaxations detrimental to employees).

The court relied on the established constitutional principle that executive instructions cannot supplement or supersede statutory rules, as held in B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore and Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan.

The court further invoked the doctrine that administrative actions inconsistent with statutory provisions are void ab initio, citing Union of India v. Sri Somesundram Vishwanath and State of Haryana v. Mahendra Singh.

Finally, it applied the principle of Article 14 regarding non-discrimination and "Equal Pay for Equal Work".

The Court observed that the Rules, 2009 are statutory in nature, having been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, and explicitly came into force on 01.01.2006.

Rule 14 provides these rules with an overriding effect, and Rule 15 explicitly forbids any relaxation that is "alabhprad" (non-beneficial/detrimental) to employees.

The Court reasoned that Clause 4 of the 07.06.2018 order was a mere executive instruction that sought to "supplant" rather than "supplement" the statutory rules by shifting the effective date of pay revision from 2006 to 2016.

Citing extensive precedent, the Court held that while the executive can fill gaps where rules are silent, it cannot act in derogation of existing statutory mandates.

The State failed to provide any reasonable ground for treating the Petitioner differently from other government servants who received benefits from 2006, rendering the classification arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

The Court quashed and set aside Clause 4 of the order dated 07.06.2018 and directed the Respondents to extend the benefit of the revised Grade Pay of ₹5400/- to the Petitioner effective from 01.01.2006, along with all consequential benefits, including pension revision and arrears, to be paid within three months.

Failure to comply within the stipulated period entitles the Petitioner to interest @ 6% per annum.

The petition was allowed.