<?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>2004 (3) TMI 742 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170124</link>
    <description>Special State industrial legislation with Presidential assent prevailed over the Board&#039;s general service regulations where both covered the same field, so the standing orders law governed to the extent of conflict. A Board notification adopting service rules did not exclude application of the 1961 Act because exclusion under Section 2(2) required a State Government notification in the Official Gazette; in its absence, the Act continued to apply. After the settlement enhancing retirement age expired by its own terms, the Board could enforce its statutory regulation fixing superannuation at 58 years, and the notification reducing the age was not illegal or without jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2015 19:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=385205" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 742 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170124</link>
      <description>Special State industrial legislation with Presidential assent prevailed over the Board&#039;s general service regulations where both covered the same field, so the standing orders law governed to the extent of conflict. A Board notification adopting service rules did not exclude application of the 1961 Act because exclusion under Section 2(2) required a State Government notification in the Official Gazette; in its absence, the Act continued to apply. After the settlement enhancing retirement age expired by its own terms, the Board could enforce its statutory regulation fixing superannuation at 58 years, and the notification reducing the age was not illegal or without jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170124</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>