<?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>2001 (1) TMI 982 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186413</link>
    <description>Article 142 permits the Supreme Court to issue consequential directions to do complete justice, including measures that maintain uniform treatment among similarly placed employees and prevent unfair recovery of sums already paid. The text explains that such directions are proper where they preserve cadre-wide uniformity and neutralise discriminatory advantage, but they must remain consistent with express substantive law and cannot create a conflict with it. The earlier directions concerning pre-1987 Traffic Apprentices and protection against recovery were treated as a valid exercise of that power, and the objection based on lack of earlier hearing was not treated as sufficient to reopen the matter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Nov 2016 12:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441417" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 982 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186413</link>
      <description>Article 142 permits the Supreme Court to issue consequential directions to do complete justice, including measures that maintain uniform treatment among similarly placed employees and prevent unfair recovery of sums already paid. The text explains that such directions are proper where they preserve cadre-wide uniformity and neutralise discriminatory advantage, but they must remain consistent with express substantive law and cannot create a conflict with it. The earlier directions concerning pre-1987 Traffic Apprentices and protection against recovery were treated as a valid exercise of that power, and the objection based on lack of earlier hearing was not treated as sufficient to reopen the matter.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186413</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>