<?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>1999 (12) TMI 855 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169827</link>
    <description>A deputationist permanently absorbed in an equivalent post retains the benefit of regular service in the parent department for seniority, because such prior service is not wiped out by transfer into the new cadre. Equivalence of posts is assessed by duties, responsibilities, status and qualifications, not pay scale alone; the Sub-Inspector post in the Border Security Force was therefore equivalent to Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police. An Office Memorandum that preserved past service but added the words &quot;whichever is later&quot; was held unreasonable and arbitrary, and therefore violative of Articles 14 and 16. The offending restriction was struck down, and seniority was to be counted from the date of regular appointment in the parent service.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 May 2015 15:00:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=384478" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (12) TMI 855 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169827</link>
      <description>A deputationist permanently absorbed in an equivalent post retains the benefit of regular service in the parent department for seniority, because such prior service is not wiped out by transfer into the new cadre. Equivalence of posts is assessed by duties, responsibilities, status and qualifications, not pay scale alone; the Sub-Inspector post in the Border Security Force was therefore equivalent to Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police. An Office Memorandum that preserved past service but added the words &quot;whichever is later&quot; was held unreasonable and arbitrary, and therefore violative of Articles 14 and 16. The offending restriction was struck down, and seniority was to be counted from the date of regular appointment in the parent service.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169827</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>