Executive instructions cannot amend or supplant statutory service rules governing promotions and nomenclature changes in public service.

...PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. S.S. Sangwan, Advocate with Mr. Ritesh Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. AG, Haryana ****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J Vide this common order this Court shall dispose of above said two writ petitions as common question of facts and law is involved therein.

For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP-

4397-2023.

1. Prayer The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking issuance of direction to the respondents to change the nomenclature of their posts from Storekeeper to Clerk, and thereafter promote them to the post of Assistant, in accordance with certain Government letters, notifications, and purported past practice.

2. Brief Facts The petitioners were appointed as Storekeepers in the Health Department, Government of Haryana, between the years 1993 and 2009 through the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. They have been discharging their duties since their respective dates of appointment.

The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the issuance of Government instructions dated 07.11.2013 and a subsequent notification dated 08.11.2013, advising uniform nomenclature across departments by merging posts like Storekeeper with that of Clerk, the respondent department has neither amended its service rules nor changed the nomenclature of the petitioners' posts accordingly. The petitioners claim that such inaction has denied them promotional opportunities to the post of Assistant, whereas Clerks, who are allegedly junior to the petitioners, have already been promoted. They further challenge the issuance of office orders dated 24.02.2023 and 27.02.2023, by which promotions were granted to other employees while the petitioners were left out. It is also claimed that certain similarly situated employees in other departments and medical colleges under the State Government have been extended the benefit of nomenclature change and subsequent promotion to the post of Assistant.

Aggrieved by same, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking appropriate directions for change in nomenclature and consequential promotions.

3. Contentions On behalf of Petitioner Counsel for the petitioners submits that despite having been appointed through the Haryana Staff Selection Commission and having served for several years, the petitioners have not been granted the benefit of promotion solely due to the respondent department’s failure to implement the Government's instructions dated 07.11.2013 and the subsequent notification dated 08.11.2013. It is argued that these instructions specifically required the unification of various clerical designations, including Storekeeper, under the common nomenclature of “Clerk.” Relying on the Chief Secretary’s letter dated 12.06.2020, it is submitted that the intention of the Government was clear and binding upon all departments, including the Health Department.

It is further contended that similarly situated employees in other government institutions have already been extended the benefit of nomenclature change and have subsequently been promoted to the post of Assistant. Counsel argues that the inaction of the respondents has led to a situation where juniors in the clerical cadre have been promoted while the petitioners continue to stagnate. Reliance have been placed on RTI replies (Annexure P-13) and departmental communications (Annexures P-5 and P-6) wherein it is allegedly admitted that the cadres of Storekeeper and Clerk are functionally similar and the petitioners are entitled to promotion