https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185492 Employees engaged for the Beas Project were treated as Central Government employees because the project was undertaken through a statutory board for the Central Government's statutory responsibility, but they could not claim quasi-permanent status under the Temporary Service Rules merely from continued service beyond three years. They had no statutory right to continued employment, absorption, or transfer to the Bhakra Beas Management Board after completion of the project, and the renaming of the board did not enlarge the protected class. Retrenchment of direct recruits did not offend Articles 14 and 16 because they were appointed temporarily for project work, while deputationists were from a different service source. Work-charged employees were bound by the settlement and award governing their service conditions. en-us Wed, 29 Aug 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:18:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185492 Employees engaged for the Beas Project were treated as Central Government employees because the project was undertaken through a statutory board for the Central Government's statutory responsibility, but they could not claim quasi-permanent status under the Temporary Service Rules merely from continued service beyond three years. They had no statutory right to continued employment, absorption, or transfer to the Bhakra Beas Management Board after completion of the project, and the renaming of the board did not enlarge the protected class. Retrenchment of direct recruits did not offend Articles 14 and 16 because they were appointed temporarily for project work, while deputationists were from a different service source. Work-charged employees were bound by the settlement and award governing their service conditions. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Aug 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185492