cites: 154167753

Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Constitution Article Cites 2 - Cited by 13610

R.S. Nayak vs A.R. Antulay & Anr on 17 April, 1986

In this context, with Page 54 of 59 2024:MLHC:621 regard to ambiguity, the case of R.S. Nayak vs. A.R. Antulay (supra) as cited by the petitioners is of great relevance, wherein the Supreme Court at Para-18 has held as follows:-

Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 548 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

M/S. Grasim Industries Limited vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 4 April, 2002

Similarly in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Para-10 thereof has held as follows:-

Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 174 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Sant Ram Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 7 August, 1967

16. On the point of whether an Office Memorandum or Government Notification can override statutory law, in the case of Page 56 of 59 2024:MLHC:621 Sant Ram Sharma vs. State Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) at Para-7, it has been held as follows:-

Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 592 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal on 22 November, 2013

6. The learned counsels have stressed on the fact that the main point for determination in the instant cases, is whether an Office Memorandum or Government Notification can override statutory law, and have submitted that it is settled law, that the respondents cannot supersede or dilute statutory laws by administrative instructions. The case of Sant Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910 and the case of Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal (2013) 16 SCC 147, have been cited in support of this contention, wherein they submit the Supreme Court has held that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, and further that no Orders, Office Memorandums or Executive instructions can be Page 44 of 59 2024:MLHC:621 issued in contravention of the statutory rules, but can only be issued to supplement the same and not to supplant it. It is further submitted that the arguments advanced by the State that by application of Rule 15, and in the interpretation received, allowed the respondents to withhold the benefits, is absurd, as all along in the Finance (Pay Revision) Department Rules which had been notified in the years 1997, 2009 and 2017, the same and identical words have been used which extended benefits to persons in the work charged establishment, and as such if there be any ambiguity it should have been detected in the earlier occasions and not at this juncture.

Supreme Court of India Cites 68 - Cited by 294 - B S Chauhan - Full Document