<?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>1982 (3) TMI 264 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189113</link>
    <description>Rule 16 fixed inter se seniority of permanently seconded officers by reference to the date of attainment of the substantive rank of Major or equivalent, and that method was treated as a rational and non-arbitrary basis for integrating officers drawn from different services into one cadre. Officers seconded before the rule had no vested right to retain seniority under the earlier practice or by date of secondment, because valid statutory seniority rules may govern future prospects. Lateral induction of officers holding higher substantive ranks was also upheld as consistent with the organisation&#039;s functional needs, and the rule-making exercise did not attract prior notice under natural justice principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2016 15:22:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=453276" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (3) TMI 264 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189113</link>
      <description>Rule 16 fixed inter se seniority of permanently seconded officers by reference to the date of attainment of the substantive rank of Major or equivalent, and that method was treated as a rational and non-arbitrary basis for integrating officers drawn from different services into one cadre. Officers seconded before the rule had no vested right to retain seniority under the earlier practice or by date of secondment, because valid statutory seniority rules may govern future prospects. Lateral induction of officers holding higher substantive ranks was also upheld as consistent with the organisation&#039;s functional needs, and the rule-making exercise did not attract prior notice under natural justice principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189113</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>