TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1972 (10) TMI 130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was discharged from that post on 9th June, 1953. On 2nd July 1953, he was re-employed as an ordinary clerk on the pay scale of Rs. 55- 85EB-4-125-5-130. His pay was re-fixed in the above scale at Rs. 70/- plus a personal pay of Rs. 2.50 by an Order dated 28th October, 1958, with effect from the date of re- employment, i.e., 2-7-1953. On 15th July, 1960, the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, issued a general Order called "Office Memorandum" No. 2(54)58/5801/D(Civil) providing for certain benefits to ex-military personnel on re-employment on the basis of their length of actual military service. The general effect of that Order was that those who are entitled to its benefits, would get fixed in the scale applicable to them by addin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the Order was not applicable to the first respondent, as he was re-employed before 25-11-1958 and his pay had already been fixed after re-employment and therefore according to the terms of the Order the case of the 1st respondent, being a past one, could not have been reopened. To resolve this question, it is necessary to understand the provisions of the Order. The first sentence in para 3 of the Order makes it clear that it is applicable only to persons reemployed on or after 25-11- 1958. Respondent No. 1 clearly does not come within this category. The Order then goes on to say that past cases will not be re-opened. That means that cases of persons re- employed prior to that date will not be re-opened. But the contention of the first re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titled to the benefit of the Order. The appellant, however, contended that the Order being an administrative direction conferred no justiciable right upon the first respondent which could be enforced in a Court by a writ or order in the nature of mandamus. The appellant submitted that the very foundation for the issue of a writ or an order in the nature of mandamus is the existence of a legal right and as an administrative order could confer no justiciable right, the High Court was wrong in issuing the order directing the second respondent to fix the pay of the first respondent in accordance with the Order. Generally speaking, an administrative Order confers no justiciable right, but this rule, like all other general rules, is subject to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd pays him the King's shilling; afterwards the officer is sued by the Government for being short in his accounts among other items he claims to be allowed the shilling paid to the undersized recruit. The Court has to consider and apply this regulation and, whatever its effect may be, that effect will be given to it by the Court exactly as effect will be given to a statute providing that murderers shall 'be hanged, or that last wills must have two witnesses." (John Chipman Gray on "The Nature and Sources of the Law"). We should not be understood as laying down any general proposition on this question. But we think that the Order in question conferred upon the first respondent the right to have his pay fixed in the manner specifie....