Whether executive orders can supplant statutory rules?

Shri. Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner assails this order on three counts. Firstly, it is submitted that the impugned order entails civil consequences and such adverse order could not have been passed without following principles of natural justice. Secondly, as per the circular of E-in-C dated 16.8.2012 (Annexure R-3) also, the recovery should have been made from the officer posted in establishment section of the department. Lastly, he submits that M.P. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 are statutory in nature. With the rules, a statutory schedule is appended which makes it clear that for Class-III employees, the Office Head has full powers to grant the earned leave. The Executive Engineer, being the Office Head has granted earned leave to the petitioner, a Class-III employee. Thus, by way of issuing executive instruction, the power given under the rules cannot be supplanted.

 In the considered opinion of this court, petition deserves to succeed on point No. 3 putforth by Shri. M.S. Bhatti. This is trite law that by issuing executive instructions, statutory rules cannot be supplanted although same can be supplemented. Putting it differently, if the statutory rules recognize and approve that the Executive Engineer is the competent authority for grant of earned leave, the said power cannot be taken away by issuing the executive instructions. Since, earned leave in the present case is granted by the competent authority as per the schedule of the said rules, on executive fiat, the said power or benefit cannot be taken away. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 03.08.2016 cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.

  In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh

(Before Sujoy Paul, J.)

Piyush Verma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Print Page

Whether leave granted to govt servant by competent authority can be cancelled due to non observance of executive instruction?

 In the considered opinion of this court, petition deserves to succeed on point No. 3 putforth by Shri. M.S. Bhatti. This is trite law that by issuing executive instructions, statutory rules cannot be supplanted although same can be supplemented. Putting it differently, if the statutory rules recognize and approve that the Executive Engineer is the competent authority for grant of earned leave, the said power cannot be taken away by issuing the executive instructions. Since, earned leave in the present case is granted by the competent authority as per the schedule of the said rules, on executive fiat, the said power or benefit cannot be taken away. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 03.08.2016 cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.

       In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh

(Before Sujoy Paul, J.)

Piyush Verma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

WP-15531-2016

Decided on February 27, 2018

Citation:2018 SCC OnLine MP 116

Print Page

Whether genetic mother can get leave in case of child born through surrogate procedure?

Thus, to conclude, this Court declares that there ought not to be any discrimination of a woman as far as the maternity benefits are concerned only on the ground that she has obtained the baby through surrogacy. It is further made clear that, keeping in view the dichotomy of maternity or motherhood, the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits an employee could have on post-delivery, sans the leave involving the health of the mother after the delivery. In other words, the child specific statutory benefits, if any, can, and ought to, be extended to the petitioner.

Kerala High Court

P.Geetha vs The Kerala Livestock Development ... on 18 June, 2014

Print Page

Whether leave is deemed to be granted if no confirmation or refusal of leave is received?

Adverting to the subsequent developments, namely, her
friends was correct.
grievance relating to the fact that the leave sanctioning authority had
not sanctioned her leave, the petitioner’s contention that by virtue of
regulation 10(3) of the Leave Regulations, she had not received any
confirmation or refusal of leave pursuant to her application made and it
was presumed that the leave was sanctioned, does not find support in
the regulations.
The relevant portion of regulation 10 are reproduced
above. Our attention is not invited to any specific provision which can
lead an employee to believe that the leave applied for is deemed to be
granted if no communication is received either sanctioning or declining
the leave request. If indeed such a provision was in existence by way
of this regulation or office memorandum clarifications, it could have
been possible to hold in favour of the petitioner on this aspect.

However, once again, the petitioner proceeded on the misconceived
notion that leave is deemed to have been granted. The Petitioner’s

contention is not well founded.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.2518 OF 2013
Mrs. S. Mangala

V/s.

Airports Authority of India, 

CORAM : V.M. KANADE AND
A.K. MENON, JJ.
DATED : 26TH AUGUST, 2014
Citation; 2015(1) ALLMR779

Print Page