<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2000 (5) TMI 1039 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122853</link>
    <description>Compassionate appointment is described as a social-justice measure intended to give immediate relief to a family facing financial distress after an employee&#039;s death, and it is not displaced by a family benefit scheme offering monthly support. The scheme is stated not to be a substitute for compassionate appointment because it cannot provide the same immediate solace and assistance. The text also stresses that gratuity has a statutory character under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and is payable to the employee&#039;s heirs on death, so compulsory diversion of gratuity under the scheme is said to be inconsistent with that mandate. Provident fund is similarly characterised as a statutory benefit meant for direct availability to the family.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159835" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 1039 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122853</link>
      <description>Compassionate appointment is described as a social-justice measure intended to give immediate relief to a family facing financial distress after an employee&#039;s death, and it is not displaced by a family benefit scheme offering monthly support. The scheme is stated not to be a substitute for compassionate appointment because it cannot provide the same immediate solace and assistance. The text also stresses that gratuity has a statutory character under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and is payable to the employee&#039;s heirs on death, so compulsory diversion of gratuity under the scheme is said to be inconsistent with that mandate. Provident fund is similarly characterised as a statutory benefit meant for direct availability to the family.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122853</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>