- (1.) 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. 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 Vs. Union of India and others, 1992 (Suppl) 3 SCC 217 the Apex Court held that though the executive orders can be issued to fill up the gaps in the rules if the rules are silent on the subject but the executive orders cannot be issued which are inconsistent with the statutory rules already framed. In Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar and another Vs. Management of Vishwa Bharata Seva Smithi and another, JT 2001 (8) SC 171 also the same view was taken. In K. Kuppusamy and another Vs. State of T.N. and others, 1998 (8) SCC 469 the Court said that statutory rules cannot be overridden by executive orders or executive practice and merely because the government has taken a decision to amend the rules does not mean that the rule stood obligated. So long as the rules are not amended in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law the same would continue to apply and would have to be observed in words and spirit. In Chandra Prakash Madhavrao Dadwa and others Vs. Union of India and others, 1998(8) SCC 154 also the Apex Court expressed the same view holding that the executive orders cannot be conflicted with the statutory rules of 1977. Moreover, a policy decision even if taken by Government would not entitle an employee to enforce such policy decision ignoring the existing statutory provision inasmuch as the rights of employees are governed by existing statutory provision and not what is likely to be amended in future unless the amendment is made with retrospective effect which is not the case here.
(3.) THE Regulations have been framed by exercising powers under Section 45 of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. It reads as under: "37. Retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. An employee of Group "C" shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years and that of Group "D" shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years: Provided that if the date of retirement falls on or after the second day of the month, the date of retirement shall be the last day of the month." Admittedly it has not been amended so far. The mere executive decision conveyed by State Government that in principle it is agreeable for extension of age of retirement of employees of public corporations from 58 to 60 years by itself would not result in a deemed or automatic amendment in the statutory regulations unless it is done in accordance with procedure prescribed therefor. The regulations can be amended in the manner the same were framed and there is no question of an automatic amendment of regulations. Atleast to this extent even learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed the exposition of law. That being so when a particular procedure is prescribed for amendment of regulations and said procedure has not been followed so far, the existing regulations have to be implemented.;