SUDHIR AGARWAL
BAL KRISHNA AWASTHI – Appellant
Versus
MANAGING DIRECTOR, U. P. S. R. T. C. , LUCKNOW – Respondent
Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—By means of impugned order, petitioners, who are admittedly Group ‘C’ employees, have been retired on attaining the age of 58 years in accordance with Regulation 37 of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “1981 Regulations”).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Government Order dated 20.12.2011 the State Government has taken a policy decision in extending the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years and, therefore, petitioners are entitled to be retired at the age of 60 years and cannot be made to retire at 58 years.
3. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. It is admitted that statutory provision has not been amended so far. Government order, being an executive order cannot override a statutory provision. It is well settled that whenever Rules or Regulations provide something, it cannot be overridden by an executive order. An executive order can be issued and enforced only where the statutory provision is silent to fill in the gap but not to be supplemented. In Indra Sawhney and others v. Union of India and others, 1992 (Suppl) 3 SCC 21
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.