Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Regulations 3(3) and 31 of the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations, 1990, by fixing 1 January 1986 as the cut-off date and denying pension to employees who retired earlier, violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The pension scheme introduced under the Regulations was held to be a wholly new scheme in substitution of the existing contributory provident fund scheme. Employees who had retired earlier had already received their retiral benefits under the provident fund scheme and had no vested right to claim coverage under the new pension scheme. The distinction drawn by the Regulations between retirees before 1 January 1986 and those retiring thereafter was supported by the model adopted from the Central Government pension scheme, the financial burden involved, and practical difficulties arising from the non-availability of old service records. The principle in the earlier liberalisation case was held to apply to revision of an existing pension scheme, not to the introduction of a new retiral benefit.
Conclusion: The cut-off date was not arbitrary or discriminatory, and Regulations 3(3) and 31 were not violative of Article 14.