<?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>1977 (10) TMI 115 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187576</link>
    <description>Government service is governed by statutory rules under Article 309 and not by ordinary contract, so Fundamental Rule 56(c) gives a Government servant an absolute statutory right to retire on three months&#039; notice once the prescribed age or service length is reached. Rule 119 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971, with Explanation 2, applies to contractual employment and abandonment without prior consent; it does not curtail the retirement right under Fundamental Rule 56(c). Accordingly, Government consent was not required, the attempted revocation could not defeat a retirement already validly effected, and the consequential transfer order was invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2016 14:02:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=446124" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (10) TMI 115 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187576</link>
      <description>Government service is governed by statutory rules under Article 309 and not by ordinary contract, so Fundamental Rule 56(c) gives a Government servant an absolute statutory right to retire on three months&#039; notice once the prescribed age or service length is reached. Rule 119 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971, with Explanation 2, applies to contractual employment and abandonment without prior consent; it does not curtail the retirement right under Fundamental Rule 56(c). Accordingly, Government consent was not required, the attempted revocation could not defeat a retirement already validly effected, and the consequential transfer order was invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187576</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>