<?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>1991 (9) TMI 344 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164324</link>
    <description>The pension scheme for High Court Judges requires seven completed years of service for eligibility under paragraph 2 of Part I of the First Schedule, while paragraph 9 provides the fixed pension for judges who do not meet that condition. The text states that this minimum qualifying service is part of the statutory scheme and cannot be reduced by judicial reading down to extend enhanced pension to a judge with less than seven years&#039; service. It also notes that the additional one month and thirteen days of service was retained only for gratuity and family pension, because the sanction adding that period was expressly subject to the final decision and did not alter pension entitlement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2025 10:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353561" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (9) TMI 344 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164324</link>
      <description>The pension scheme for High Court Judges requires seven completed years of service for eligibility under paragraph 2 of Part I of the First Schedule, while paragraph 9 provides the fixed pension for judges who do not meet that condition. The text states that this minimum qualifying service is part of the statutory scheme and cannot be reduced by judicial reading down to extend enhanced pension to a judge with less than seven years&#039; service. It also notes that the additional one month and thirteen days of service was retained only for gratuity and family pension, because the sanction adding that period was expressly subject to the final decision and did not alter pension entitlement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>