<?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>1999 (12) TMI 868 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190544</link>
    <description>Permanent absorption in an equivalent post on transfer from the Border Security Force to the Delhi Police entitled the officers to count their regular substantive service in the parent cadre for seniority. The Court held that seniority could not be fixed by ignoring past service where the absorption was into an equivalent grade, and the contrary view of the Tribunal was incorrect. The Office Memorandum phrase &quot;whichever is later&quot; was struck down as unreasonable and arbitrary because it defeated the accrued benefit of past service and could not override the equality guarantee. The impugned restriction was declared violative of Articles 14 and 16.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2017 14:42:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459016" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (12) TMI 868 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190544</link>
      <description>Permanent absorption in an equivalent post on transfer from the Border Security Force to the Delhi Police entitled the officers to count their regular substantive service in the parent cadre for seniority. The Court held that seniority could not be fixed by ignoring past service where the absorption was into an equivalent grade, and the contrary view of the Tribunal was incorrect. The Office Memorandum phrase &quot;whichever is later&quot; was struck down as unreasonable and arbitrary because it defeated the accrued benefit of past service and could not override the equality guarantee. The impugned restriction was declared violative of Articles 14 and 16.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190544</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>