https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104916 Staff appointed under the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 who performed the same perennial duties as regular employees for long periods could not be denied regularisation, parity in pay, or retiral benefits where no rational basis for differentiation was shown. The Court accepted that their work was identical to that of the official liquidator and court liquidator staff, and that the classification between the two groups was arbitrary. On that basis, the earlier refusal to regularise their service was unsustainable, and the connected service claims were upheld, with time granted to frame and implement a scheme. en-us Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Aug 2013 15:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104916 Staff appointed under the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 who performed the same perennial duties as regular employees for long periods could not be denied regularisation, parity in pay, or retiral benefits where no rational basis for differentiation was shown. The Court accepted that their work was identical to that of the official liquidator and court liquidator staff, and that the classification between the two groups was arbitrary. On that basis, the earlier refusal to regularise their service was unsustainable, and the connected service claims were upheld, with time granted to frame and implement a scheme. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104916