<?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>2008 (5) TMI 644 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173424</link>
    <description>An order affecting service rights becomes effective only when it is communicated before the relevant cut-off date by dispatch to the correct address. In the context of voluntary retirement under Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, a government servant under suspension could be prevented from retiring only if the suspension order was validly communicated before retirement became effective. Here, the Department knew the respondent was at NOIDA, but the suspension order was first sent to Nagpur and only later to the correct address. Because it was not effectively communicated before 1 September 2005, the suspension could not defeat the retirement, and the respondent was treated as having retired from that date.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2015 09:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397416" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 644 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173424</link>
      <description>An order affecting service rights becomes effective only when it is communicated before the relevant cut-off date by dispatch to the correct address. In the context of voluntary retirement under Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, a government servant under suspension could be prevented from retiring only if the suspension order was validly communicated before retirement became effective. Here, the Department knew the respondent was at NOIDA, but the suspension order was first sent to Nagpur and only later to the correct address. Because it was not effectively communicated before 1 September 2005, the suspension could not defeat the retirement, and the respondent was treated as having retired from that date.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173424</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>