https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342029 The petitioner, appointed as a Member of the Trade Tax Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, was treated as a Government servant for service-rule purposes, and Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules applied to his appointment. On that basis, the service framework entitled him to retiring pension and other post-retiral benefits under Rule 56(e). A later Government Order declaring the post non-pensionable could not retrospectively alter the service conditions of a person already appointed in 1998, and the fact that earlier incumbents had not challenged similar denial did not validate the refusal. The HC held that pension and retiral dues were payable. en-us Thu, 15 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Apr 2017 07:34:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342029 The petitioner, appointed as a Member of the Trade Tax Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, was treated as a Government servant for service-rule purposes, and Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules applied to his appointment. On that basis, the service framework entitled him to retiring pension and other post-retiral benefits under Rule 56(e). A later Government Order declaring the post non-pensionable could not retrospectively alter the service conditions of a person already appointed in 1998, and the fact that earlier incumbents had not challenged similar denial did not validate the refusal. The HC held that pension and retiral dues were payable. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 15 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342029