Law Insider India

Legal News, Current Trends and Legal Insight | Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Supreme Court: Regulations framed by Statutory Authorities have same force as Enacted Law

2 min read
SUPREME COURT

Shivani Gadhavi

Published On: January 25, 2022 at 18:33 IST

The Supreme Court of India on January 20, 2022 allowed a Petition in the Case The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. Union of India and Ors, and stated that Regulations that are framed by Statutory Authorities have the same force as an already Enacted Law.

The Supreme Court Bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and A S Bopanna was hearing a Petition filed by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) challenging the Order of the Karnataka High Court which dismissed its Writ Petition that challenged the applicability of Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) scheme for the promotion of two assistant professors under the said scheme.

The matter is pertaining to a Suit filed by the current Respondents (Respondents 3 to 25) regarding their promotion to associate professors under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) scheme.

Earlier in this regard a Central Administrative Tribunal had ordered the current Appellants (ESIC) to promote the Respondents under the DACP and had contended that the ESIC Rules and Regulations are sustainable in this regard. The High Court had contended the same and had Ordered for promotion of the Respondents.

Currently, the Supreme Court Bench allowed the Petition of the current Appellants while citing the Case of Sukhdev Singh V BhagatramSardar Singh Raghuvanshi and stated, “The ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2008 and ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 have Statutory effect by virtue of Section 97(3) of the ESI Act. It is settled Law that Regulations framed by Statutory Authorities have the force of Enacted Law.”

The Bench also mentioned the case of Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and stated that “an office order or office memorandum cannot contravene Statutory Rules.”

The Bench also cited the Case of Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh, which clarified the Law of agency regarding client Lawyer relationships, while stating that “while generally admissions of fact by Counsel are binding, neither the client nor the Court is bound by admissions as to matters of Law or Legal conclusions.”

The Bench after considering all the facts and observations pertaining to the Case set aside the Impugned Order of the Karnataka High Court and Ruled that the promotion of contesting Respondents and other applicants (in general) should be done in accordance with the ESIC Rules and Regulations and the DACP scheme.