Awadhesh Kumar Chaturvedi vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that executive instructions cannot amend or supersede statutory rules, nor can they be issued in contravention of statutory rules. The Supreme Court has consistently held that executive instructions can only supplement statutory rules and fill gaps where the rules are silent, but they must be subservient to statutory provisions and cannot override them. In this case, the petitioners were appointed to the cadre in 2010, and seniority was granted to them from their date of appointment. The Court found no irregularity or illegality in rejecting the petitioners' representations for retrospective seniority based on executive instructions that were inconsistent with the established principle that statutory rules prevail over executive instructions. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioners, employees engaged temporarily for the 1991 census by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, sought absorption with the State Government of Chhattisgarh. Following a policy decision by the Chhattisgarh Government on September 12, 2003, to absorb such employees, the petitioners were absorbed on December 7, 2010, as Assistant Grade III. A gradation list was issued on April 1, 2011, and subsequently in 2018, showing the petitioners' seniority from their absorption date. The petitioners' objections to this seniority placement were rejected by orders dated March 2, 2012, and January 31, 2019. The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of their application for correction in the seniority list, seeking seniority from the date their juniors were appointed and notional pay fixation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim seniority from the date of their engagement in the 1991 census or from their date of absorption into the State Government service in 2010, considering the executive instructions issued by the State Government. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that a policy decision was taken by the State Government on September 12, 2003, to absorb them, and due to the State's inaction, they should be granted seniority from 2003. They contended that the respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong and that executive instructions, if they exist, should be acted upon. Revenue/State's contention: The State contended that the petitioners were appointed on December 7, 2010, and are therefore entitled to seniority only from that date. They argued that executive instructions cannot be issued contrary to the Rules and that the petitioners' claim for seniority from their census engagement should be rejected.