<?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>1988 (11) TMI 347 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172271</link>
    <description>An administrative circular that prejudicially altered employees&#039; existing service conditions was held to require prior notice and hearing as a condition of fairness under natural justice. The court treated the term &quot;duly&quot; in section 11(2) as excluding arbitrary action and requiring any change in service conditions to be made in accordance with law and fairness. Because the employees were not heard before the circular was issued, the action involved civil consequences and could not be justified by a later hearing. A post-decisional hearing was held insufficient, as it could not cure the breach of natural justice or the arbitrariness under Article 14.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:15:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393608" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (11) TMI 347 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172271</link>
      <description>An administrative circular that prejudicially altered employees&#039; existing service conditions was held to require prior notice and hearing as a condition of fairness under natural justice. The court treated the term &quot;duly&quot; in section 11(2) as excluding arbitrary action and requiring any change in service conditions to be made in accordance with law and fairness. Because the employees were not heard before the circular was issued, the action involved civil consequences and could not be justified by a later hearing. A post-decisional hearing was held insufficient, as it could not cure the breach of natural justice or the arbitrariness under Article 14.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172271</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>