IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that benefits under the CAS were not applicable to employees of state government undertakings.

JUDGMENT :

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated May 9, 2024 passed in W.P.O. No. 226 of 2016. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition directing appellants to afford Career Advancement Scheme benefits (CAS) to the writ petitioners in terms of Memo No. 6075-F dated June 21, 1990 with its modifications in accordance with Memo No. 3015-F dated March 13, 2001, within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.

2. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the learned Single Judge erred in appreciating the true perspective of the memoranda in question and came to a wrong finding.

3. It was further submitted that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that by memorandum being No. 2676 – WT. 7T – 18/2005 dated August 14, 2007, the state authorities were pleased to explicitly clarify that the benefits of the Carrier Advancement Scheme will be applicable upon the applicant No. 1 in terms of the memorandum No. 7552 (80) – F dated September 4, 2000.

4. It was further contended on behalf of the appellant that learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that the memorandum dated June 21, 1990 was not applicable so far it was inconsistent with the memorandum dated March 13, 2001, though, the learned Single Judge observed that for implementation of the Carrier Advancement Scheme, benefits were based upon the memorandum dated June 21, 1990.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that the memorandum No. 6075 – F dated June 21, 1990 was not automatically applicable to the employees of state government undertaking. It was contended that the learned Single Judge was misdirected in observing that the OSD and Ex-officio Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, by his memorandum No. 2676-W.T. 7T-18/2005 dated August 14, 2007 had directed implementation of the memorandum No. 7552 (80)-F dated September 4, 2000 and that it was not specific to Corporation.

6. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that the learned Trial Judge erred in holding that the communication vide memorandum No. 2676-W.T. 7T-18/2005 dated August 14, 2007 was directed to implementation of memorandum No. 7552 (80)-F dated September 4, 2000 and not the memorandum, which was inconsistent with the memorandum of 2001. It was also contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the difference between the employees of State Government and the employees of State Government Undertaking and the several memorandum issued directing Career Advancement Schemes specific to such class of employees.

7. Learned advocate for the appellant also submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that since both the notifications being memorandum No. 7552 (80)-F dated September 4, 2000 and memorandum No. 3015-F dated March13, 2001 were issued following recommendation of 4th Pay Commission, there was no rationale why the benefits of memorandum of 2001 could have not been extended to the employees of Corporations.

8. Relying upon the decision reported in (2021) 17 SCC 435 (New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Another vs. B.D. Singhal and Others), learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the High Court should not enter into the realm of policy making which is exclusive domain of the executive authority.

9. Learned advocate for the appellant also cited the decision rendered in (2013) 5 SCC 427 (Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur and Others) on the proposition that executive instructions which have no statutory force, cannot override the law.

10. Placing reliance upon the case reported in (1997) 3 SCC 321 (State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ram Kumar Mann), (2020) 19 SCC 317 (Commissioner of Municipal Administration and Another vs. M.C. Sheela Evanjalin and Others), (2007) 4 SCC 737 (Directorate of Film Festivals and Other vs. Gaurav Ashwin Ja