https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256999 A pay distinction between members of a common appellate tribunal, based only on the enactment under which they were appointed, was held to be an unreasonable classification because all members performed identical work, duties and responsibilities; the higher pay scale was therefore applicable from the date of appointment. Notifications seeking to reduce that higher scale and equalise it with the lower scale could not validly be applied to existing incumbents, because service conditions already accrued to them could not be worsened by removing that entitlement. The impugned amendments were struck down to that extent, with consequential monetary benefits and interest. en-us Tue, 06 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256999 A pay distinction between members of a common appellate tribunal, based only on the enactment under which they were appointed, was held to be an unreasonable classification because all members performed identical work, duties and responsibilities; the higher pay scale was therefore applicable from the date of appointment. Notifications seeking to reduce that higher scale and equalise it with the lower scale could not validly be applied to existing incumbents, because service conditions already accrued to them could not be worsened by removing that entitlement. The impugned amendments were struck down to that extent, with consequential monetary benefits and interest. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 06 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256999