Washington - In a move that could delay or deny benefits for tens of thousands of people, the Social Security Administration has told its judges that they should, in most cases, disregard federal court precedents, if those rulings conflict with agency policies.

The order has drawn protests from federal courts, members of Congress and agency employees.

This week, the House Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing to examine the practice.

The Social Security agency recently told its administrative law judges, who rule on claims for benefits, that they might face remedial training and 'disciplinary action' if they did not follow agency policy even if, in the administrative judge's opinion, the policy is contrary to law," the agency said in a confidential that memorandum to its judges. A copy of the memorandum was obtained by the New York Times.

In practice, the directive means some people who file claims will be less likely to obtain benefits because the agency's policies are often stricter than the court's decisions.

For example, a claimant's doctor might find disability in a 58-year-old man who has had a heart attack and has chronic respiratory problems.

Government doctors might say the man could still work. But courts often conclude that the treating doctor's opinion is entitled to much more weight than the Social Security Administration gave it.

Social Security officials said that they could not operate a uniform nation-wide program if they had to follow the potentially conflicting decisions of various courts around the country.

"Administrative law judges can decide facts, but not the law, " said a spokesman for the agency, Philip Gambino. "They have to apply the law as written in our regulations and policies.

But Ronald Bernoski, acting president of the Association of Administrative Law Judges, which represents Social Security Judges, said he and his colleagues in the organization had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and should not be required to disregard court decisions.

The Clinton administration says it will apply the final decision of a federal appeals court to a plaintiff in the specific case decided by the court. But the administration says administrative law judges should not follow the decision as a precedent in other cases, unless the Social Security commissioner has accepted it by issuing a formal notice of "acquiescence". The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, in St. Louis, recently admonished the Clinton administration on that issue.