#Executive Instructions

Bombay High Court holds that executive instructions under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code cannot override a valid conversion order granting Occupancy Class-I rights, even retrospectively. The ruling underscores the limited jurisdiction of revenue authorities in contractual disputes and reinforces the finality of duly issued conversion orders, protecting landowners from arbitrary administrative reversals.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that pensionary benefits like Old Age Allowance and Travel Concession, once granted under statutory rules, cannot be withheld by executive instructions alone. The court emphasized that such benefits are protected under Article 300A and require explicit statutory backing for denial, impacting retired government officials facing provisional pension deductions.

The Uttarakhand High Court ruled that ex-servicemen are entitled to reservation benefits under the Purva Sainik Act for multiple appointments, not just one. The court held that executive instructions cannot override the statutory definition of 'Purva Sainik,' ensuring ex-servicemen retain their reservation rights regardless of prior employment.

The Delhi High Court ruled that even if a deputationist meets all eligibility criteria under a Standing Operating Procedure, absorption into a permanent post remains a discretionary administrative decision, not a legal entitlement. This clarifies that post-repatriation claims for absorption are legally untenable, affecting thousands of central government employees on deputation across similar frameworks.

Jharkhand High Court holds that unfilled 25% reserved quota for primary teachers can be merged with 75% direct recruitment pool under Rule 9(i), upholding executive clarification as lawful.