<?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>2006 (2) TMI 661 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184644</link>
    <description>The SC dismissed the appeals, affirming the HC&#039;s decision that appellants who opted for VRS were not entitled to revised pay scales. The court held that the appellants did not meet the criteria in the circular for such benefits and were bound by the VRS contract terms, distinguishing VRS from superannuation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2024 15:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435021" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 661 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184644</link>
      <description>The SC dismissed the appeals, affirming the HC&#039;s decision that appellants who opted for VRS were not entitled to revised pay scales. The court held that the appellants did not meet the criteria in the circular for such benefits and were bound by the VRS contract terms, distinguishing VRS from superannuation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184644</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>