Court Reaffirms Right to Stipend Till Appointment, Highlights Constitutional Requirements for Policy Changes
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed a corrigendum issued by the Uttar Pradesh government that sought to restrict the payment of stipends to Special BTC (Basic Training Certificate) trainees only for the duration of their training period, rather than until the date of their appointment. The court determined that such a substantive alteration required approval under Article 166 of the Indian Constitution, which the corrigendum lacked.
The case, presided over by Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, revolved around the original government order dated January 14, 2004, which promised a stipend of Rs. 2,500 per month to selected candidates from the start of their training until their appointment. A subsequent corrigendum issued on May 14, 2015, attempted to modify this by limiting the stipend to the training period alone. The petitioners, led by Ashwani Kumar Awasthi, challenged this alteration as a breach of their legitimate expectations and accrued rights.
The court underscored that the 2015 corrigendum was not a mere clerical or explanatory act but constituted a substantive change in policy. It noted that such a change could not be enacted without the Governor's sanction, as mandated by the Constitution. The judgment highlighted that the original policy decision had been affirmed in previous litigation, including by the Supreme Court, thereby establishing a precedent and binding the government to the original terms.
Justice Chauhan emphasized the doctrine of legitimate expectation, noting that the trainees had acted on the assurances provided in the original order. The attempt to alter these terms through a corrigendum was deemed arbitrary and inconsistent with established judicial pronouncements.
The court's decision reaffirms the necessity for governmental transparency and adherence to constitutional protocols when modifying policy decisions that affect vested rights. The ruling directs the state government to provide the stipulated stipend from the commencement of training until the appointment date, in line with the original government order.
This judgment is a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding citizens' rights against arbitrary administrative actions and ensuring that any policy changes adhere to constitutional mandates.
Bottom line:-
Government Orders - A corrigendum that materially modifies the substantive conditions of an original Government order, thereby altering vested rights, cannot be considered a mere clerical or explanatory act and requires approval under Article 166 of the Constitution of India.
Statutory provision(s): Article 166 of the Constitution of India
Ashwani Kumar Awasthi v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2900132
