EVEN AFTER PASSAGE OF 5 YEARS SINCE HARYANA CABINET DECIDED TO CREATE HRD, STILL ITS NOT AN INDEPENDENT DEPTT. STILL COMES UNDER GAD

ADVOCATE FLAGS MAJOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANOMALY IN THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 3 NOVEMBER 2021 WHICH INSERTED HRD AS AN ENTRY WITHIN THE GAD ITSELF

Face2News/Chandigarh

A significant legal and administrative issue concerning the organisational structure of the Haryana Government has been brought before the State’s highest constitutional authorities, with an Advocate alleging that the Human Resources Department c (HRD) ontinues to function without independent statutory recognition despite a Cabinet decision taken five years ago.

In a detailed representation submitted on Tuesday to the Governor, Chief Minister, Chief Secretary, Finance Secretary, Haryana State Law Commission, Lokayukta, Advocate General, Legal Remembrance and several senior constitutional and administrative authorities, Hemant Kumar, Advocate at the Punjab & Haryana High Court, has claimed that the Human Resources Department has “never legally come into existence” as an independent Government department under the Business of the Haryana Government (Allocation) Rules, 1974, notwithstanding repeated official references describing it as a separate department.

According to the representation, the Haryana Council of Ministers had, in its meeting held on August 5, 2021, approved the creation of a separate Human Resources Department under the Chief Secretary.

However, Hematn has alleged that when the decision was implemented through the Business of the Haryana Government (Allocation) Amendment Rules, 2021, notified on November 3, 2021, the statutory amendment failed to create Human Resources as an independent department in the Schedule to the Allocation Rules.

Instead, he contends, the words “Human Resources Department” were inserted merely as an Entry No. (1) under the General Administration Department (GAD), resulting in what he describes as a continuing legal inconsistency between the Cabinet’s decision and the statutory framework governing the allocation of executive business.

‘Administrative Description Cannot Replace Statutory Recognition’

The representation argues that a Government department derives its legal identity only through the Allocation of Business Rules framed for conducting executive business and that describing an administrative branch as a “Department” in official correspondence cannot, by itself, confer independent legal status.

The Advocate has maintained that for nearly five years, Government notifications, office memoranda, circulars and official communications have consistently referred to the Human Resources Department as a separate department despite the absence of corresponding statutory recognition under the Allocation Rules.

Issue Raised Repeatedly

Hemant has stated that he has repeatedly brought the issue to the attention of the State Government through several representations over the past five years but that no corrective amendment appears to have been carried out so far.

According to the representation, the continuing anomaly has allegedly led to inconsistencies between the Cabinet decision and the statutory rules, divergence between the legal position and administrative practice, uncertainty regarding the legal status of the Human Resources Department, and concerns over adherence to the statutory framework governing executive action.

Demand for Immediate Correction

The representation has urged the competent authorities to undertake a comprehensive examination of the matter, verify whether the Cabinet decision of August 5, 2021 was accurately reflected in the Allocation of Business Rules, and, if necessary, amend the Rules to accord independent legal status to the Human Resources Department.

It has also sought directions to ensure that future Government notifications, circulars, orders and official correspondence strictly conform to the statutory Allocation Rules.

The representation describes the issue as one affecting the legal architecture of the State Government itself and calls for urgent corrective action in the interest of administrative certainty, transparency, good governance and adherence to the rule of law.

Government authorities had not issued any official response to the allegations till the filing of this legal representation.