<?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>1984 (9) TMI 295 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175965</link>
    <description>Rule 299(1)(b) of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules was construed to fix the maximum pension at Rs. 1,000 per month in Indian Government currency, not Osmania Sikka currency, because the later rules were framed in a different statutory setting and contemporaneous material confirmed the Indian currency basis. A retrospective 1971 amendment reducing the pension ceiling was held invalid against affected employees because pension was a condition of service and the State lacked previous Central Government approval required for adverse variation under the States Reorganisation Act. The pleas of waiver and estoppel also failed for want of any factual foundation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2015 14:49:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=408261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (9) TMI 295 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175965</link>
      <description>Rule 299(1)(b) of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules was construed to fix the maximum pension at Rs. 1,000 per month in Indian Government currency, not Osmania Sikka currency, because the later rules were framed in a different statutory setting and contemporaneous material confirmed the Indian currency basis. A retrospective 1971 amendment reducing the pension ceiling was held invalid against affected employees because pension was a condition of service and the State lacked previous Central Government approval required for adverse variation under the States Reorganisation Act. The pleas of waiver and estoppel also failed for want of any factual foundation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175965</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>