Departmental Corrigendum Cannot Curtail Stipend Granted Under Original Government Policy Without Governor’s Approval: Allahabad High Court

The Court observed that executive authorities may issue clerical corrections or explanatory clarifications, but such power ends where the proposed correction materially alters substantive rights or accrued financial entitlements flowing from an original Government Order.

The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by candidates selected for the Special BTC Training Course, 2004, challenging a corrigendum dated 14.05.2015 and consequential orders denying stipend beyond the training period. The petitioners contended that the original Government Order dated 14.01.2004 entitled them to stipend from the commencement of training till appointment as Assistant Teachers.

A Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed: “…While executive authorities possess incidental power to issue clerical corrections, explanatory notes, or ministerial clarifications, such authority terminates at the point where the proposed correction materially alters substantive rights, financial entitlements, or policy conditions embodied in the original Government Order. Once the alteration ceases to be explanatory and assumes the character of a substantive modification, the constitutional discipline contemplated under Article 166 becomes indispensable”.

The Bench accordingly held: “…the corrigendum dated 14.05.2015, insofar as it seeks to restrict payment of stipend only up to the training period, is not a mere clarificatory or ministerial act but constitutes a substantive modification of the original Government order dated 14.01.2004. In absence of issuance of a valid Government order with due approval in accordance with Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the said corrigendum cannot be given legal effect”.

Advocates Abhishek Mishra, Gopal Verma, H.A.B. Sinha, Hari Manish Bahadur Sinha, Rahul Mishra and Sharad Kumar appeared for the petitioners. The State was represented by the Chief Standing Counsel.

Background

The petitioners were selected for the Special BTC Training Course, 2004. Under the Government Order dated 14.01.2004, selected candidates were entitled to a stipend of Rs. 2,500 per month from the commencement of training till the date of appointment.

However, the State later issued a corrigendum dated 14.05.2015 restricting payment of stipend only to the duration of training. Based on this corrigendum, the petitioners’ claims for stipend till appointment were rejected through subsequent orders.

The petitioners challenged both the corrigendum and the rejection orders, contending that the corrigendum unlawfully curtailed substantive benefits already granted under the original Government policy.

The State argued that the corrigendum was merely clarificatory and did not amount to a fresh policy decision requiring approval of the Governor. It relied upon constitutional provisions relating to executive business under Article 166 and judgments concerning ministerial corrections and clarificatory actions.

Court’s Observation

The High Court held that the distinction between a clerical correction and a substantive policy alteration was well settled. While minor explanatory or ministerial corrections could be made departmentally, substantive changes affecting accrued rights required compliance with constitutional procedure under Article 166.

The Court observed that the original Government Order expressly provided a stipend till appointment and thereby created enforceable rights in favour of the trainees.

The Bench observed: “The subsequent corrigendum, by restricting such payment only to the duration of training, effectively truncates the period of entitlement and thereby deprives the beneficiaries of a substantive financial benefit which had accrued under the original policy.”

The Court rejected the State’s argument that the corrigendum merely clarified the original intent of the Government Order.

The Bench further observed: “Such curtailment cannot be characterised as correction of an accidental slip or removal of ambiguity. It amounts, in substance and effect, to modification of the original policy decision itself.”

Referring to precedents including State of Bihar v. Kripalu Shankar (1987), Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji (1952), Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (1968), and State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd. (2004), the Court reiterated that executive policy decisions issued with proper constitutional sanction cannot subsequently be diluted through informal departmental exercises.

The Court also noted that the original Government Order had been issued with the sanction and approval of the Governor, and therefore any substantive modification affecting vested or accrued benefits could only be made through a fresh Government Order complying with Article 166 and the applicable Rules of Business.

The High Court further held that earlier litigation regarding entitlement to stipend had already culminated in decisions affirming the trainees’ entitlement up to the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court held that the corrigendum dated 14.05.2015 was not a mere clarificatory or ministerial act but a substantive modification of the original Government policy.

The Court ruled that in the absence of a valid Government Order issued with due approval under Article 166 of the Constitution, the corrigendum could not be given legal effect.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the corrigendum to the extent it restricted payment of stipend only to the training period, along with consequential rejection orders, and directed the State to extend stipend benefits to the petitioners in terms of the original Government Orders dated 14.01.2004 and 20.02.2004.

Cause Title: Ashwani Kumar Awasthi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:112897)

Click here to read/download Judgment