<?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>1987 (5) TMI 375 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192787</link>
    <description>Probationary/Trainee Officers appointed after the appointed date under the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 were not &quot;existing officers&quot; because that term covered only officers in service immediately before the appointed date. Their later fitment in Junior Management Grade: Scale-I and higher starting pay did not alter that position, so they could not claim seniority over erstwhile Officers Grade-II. The Order was also not impermissibly retrospective, as it operated from the appointed date only to reorganise the covered cadre and fix inter se seniority among those within it; no vested right of seniority of the later appointees was infringed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:15:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=473638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (5) TMI 375 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192787</link>
      <description>Probationary/Trainee Officers appointed after the appointed date under the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 were not &quot;existing officers&quot; because that term covered only officers in service immediately before the appointed date. Their later fitment in Junior Management Grade: Scale-I and higher starting pay did not alter that position, so they could not claim seniority over erstwhile Officers Grade-II. The Order was also not impermissibly retrospective, as it operated from the appointed date only to reorganise the covered cadre and fix inter se seniority among those within it; no vested right of seniority of the later appointees was infringed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192787</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>