<?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>1992 (2) TMI 322 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154428</link>
    <description>An age-based disqualification in amended Section 5(6) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, read with the validating provision in the Himachal Pradesh Amendment Act, was treated as self-executing and as covering both appointment and continuation in office, so the incumbent&#039;s tenure ended by operation of law when the amendment came into force. The Court upheld the amendment against Article 14 challenge, holding that a generally applicable superannuation policy is not invalid merely because it immediately affects one incumbent and that legislative motive does not defeat a statute supported by a rational policy basis. It also held that the writ petition did not fail for non-impleadment of the successor Chairman, as effective relief did not depend on his presence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2014 11:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171459" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (2) TMI 322 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154428</link>
      <description>An age-based disqualification in amended Section 5(6) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, read with the validating provision in the Himachal Pradesh Amendment Act, was treated as self-executing and as covering both appointment and continuation in office, so the incumbent&#039;s tenure ended by operation of law when the amendment came into force. The Court upheld the amendment against Article 14 challenge, holding that a generally applicable superannuation policy is not invalid merely because it immediately affects one incumbent and that legislative motive does not defeat a statute supported by a rational policy basis. It also held that the writ petition did not fail for non-impleadment of the successor Chairman, as effective relief did not depend on his presence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>