Union Of India vs K. P. Joseph And Ors on 27 October, 1972
3. Counsel for the first respondent relied on Union of India v. K.P. Joseph . where it was observed by the Supreme Court that to say that the Government order could never confer any right would be too wide a proposition and that there were administrative orders which conferred rights and imposed duties. The Court further observed that it was because an administrative order could abridge or take away rights that Courts had imported the principle of natural justice of audi alterant pattern into this area. We are afraid that this citation is not apposite and does not in any way support the first respondent. That was a case of a Government servant, more particularly in the Indian Army, and the question there was whether a general office memorandum touching the conditions of service, as an administrative order, which conferred certain rights on a Government employee, could be enforced through Courts cf law. That is not the case before us. A private institution is not regulated by a Government order in the matter of conditions of service of its own employees which are left to contractual relationship. We are unable, therefore, to agree with the learned Judge that the first respondent is entitled to the relief which he has given on the strength of the Government order.