https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187882 The Supreme Court held that an expressly authorised retrospective amendment to the Centralised Services Rules validly displaced the earlier deemed date of automatic final absorption, so the employees could not claim absorption as of 31 March 1967. It also held that determinations of suitability affecting service rights had to comply with natural justice. On the facts, one employee had been given an interview and his termination was sustained, but the other was terminated without any hearing, which vitiated the order. The judgment therefore upheld the retrospective validation of the absorption scheme, rejected automatic absorption, sustained one termination, and set aside the other for breach of fair hearing. en-us Fri, 15 Dec 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:08:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187882 The Supreme Court held that an expressly authorised retrospective amendment to the Centralised Services Rules validly displaced the earlier deemed date of automatic final absorption, so the employees could not claim absorption as of 31 March 1967. It also held that determinations of suitability affecting service rights had to comply with natural justice. On the facts, one employee had been given an interview and his termination was sustained, but the other was terminated without any hearing, which vitiated the order. The judgment therefore upheld the retrospective validation of the absorption scheme, rejected automatic absorption, sustained one termination, and set aside the other for breach of fair hearing. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 15 Dec 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187882