<?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>1972 (2) TMI 98 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174514</link>
    <description>Under the seniority rules, a State Government may retrospectively declare a post equivalent to a senior post where the rules contemplate equivalence by declaration, and that power supports recognition of past comparable service for seniority purposes. However, seniority benefit for officiation before inclusion in the Select List depends on a separate statutory safeguard: specific approval of that period by the Central Government in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. Earlier correspondence or approval of the Select List alone does not satisfy that distinct requirement, so the disputed officiation period cannot be counted unless such approval is established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2015 12:49:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400717" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (2) TMI 98 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174514</link>
      <description>Under the seniority rules, a State Government may retrospectively declare a post equivalent to a senior post where the rules contemplate equivalence by declaration, and that power supports recognition of past comparable service for seniority purposes. However, seniority benefit for officiation before inclusion in the Select List depends on a separate statutory safeguard: specific approval of that period by the Central Government in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. Earlier correspondence or approval of the Select List alone does not satisfy that distinct requirement, so the disputed officiation period cannot be counted unless such approval is established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174514</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>