Supreme Court reverses interim orders on U.P. Legal Remembrancer Manual amendments

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the interim orders by the High Court staying the operation of amended provisions of the U.P. Legal Remembrancer Manual. It emphasized caution in staying statutory provisions unless patently unconstitutional, upheld the reduction of the age of District Government Counsel, and highlighted the importance of consultation with the District Judge for appointment proposals. The Court clarified legal principles on repealing and amending statutory provisions, emphasizing that the High Court erred in directing action under repealed provisions. The appeals were disposed of without costs, with actions under the interim order maintained until final disposal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Interim orders by the High Court staying the operation of amended provisions of the U.P. Legal Remembrancer Manual.
2. Reduction of the age of District Government Counsel from 62 to 60 years.
3. Dispensation of consultation with the District Judge by the District Magistrate for appointment proposals.
4. Validity and implications of repealing and amending statutory provisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interim Orders by the High Court:
The Supreme Court addressed the interim orders passed by the High Court of Allahabad, which stayed the operation of the amended provisions of the U.P. Legal Remembrancer Manual (L.R. Manual) and directed the State Government to consider applications for renewal of District Government Counsel under the unamended provisions. The Supreme Court emphasized that courts should be cautious in staying statutory provisions unless they are patently unconstitutional. The interim orders effectively legislated by judicial order, which was deemed inappropriate.

2. Reduction of Age from 62 to 60 Years:
The amendment to the L.R. Manual reduced the age of District Government Counsel from 62 to 60 years. The Supreme Court noted that fixing the age of retirement falls within the exclusive competence of the State Government, even in government services. The Court cited precedents where similar reductions in retirement age were upheld, such as in Bishun Narain Misra v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, emphasizing that such changes do not violate constitutional principles.

3. Dispensation of Consultation with the District Judge:
The amended provisions also dispensed with the requirement for the District Magistrate to consult the District Judge before making appointment proposals for District Government Counsel. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of the District Judge's opinion, referencing cases like Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. and State of U.P. v. Johri Mal, where judicial consultation was considered significant. The Court suggested that this matter required further examination but did not provide a definitive ruling on it in the interim order context.

4. Validity and Implications of Repealing and Amending Statutory Provisions:
The Supreme Court discussed the legal principles surrounding the repeal and amendment of statutory provisions. It clarified that when an Act is repealed, it is considered as if it never existed, except for certain purposes under section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Court distinguished between repeal and suspension, noting that repeal completely removes the law, whereas suspension holds it in abeyance. The Court emphasized that the High Court erred in directing the State to act under the repealed provisions of the L.R. Manual, as they no longer existed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the interim orders dated 30.11.2009 and 4.9.2008. It maintained that any actions taken by the State Authorities under the interim order dated 4.9.2008 would not be disturbed until the final disposal of the cases. The Court requested the High Court to consolidate and expedite the pending cases, clarifying that the observations made were solely for assessing the correctness of the interim orders and not on the merits of the case. The appeals were disposed of without costs.

---