<?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>2005 (11) TMI 506 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193762</link>
    <description>The amended Rule 56(a) raising the superannuation age from 58 to 60 years applied to Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam employees because Regulation 31 incorporated the service rules and later amendments applicable to State government servants. Section 37 preserved transferred employees on existing terms until changed under the Act, but a direction under Section 89 and an administrative decision under Section 15 could not override or amend a statutory regulation. Regulation 31 could be altered only by a valid amendment made in accordance with the Act. The employees were therefore entitled to retire at 60 years until Regulation 31 was prospectively amended, and the contrary orders were invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2024 10:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485797" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 506 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193762</link>
      <description>The amended Rule 56(a) raising the superannuation age from 58 to 60 years applied to Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam employees because Regulation 31 incorporated the service rules and later amendments applicable to State government servants. Section 37 preserved transferred employees on existing terms until changed under the Act, but a direction under Section 89 and an administrative decision under Section 15 could not override or amend a statutory regulation. Regulation 31 could be altered only by a valid amendment made in accordance with the Act. The employees were therefore entitled to retire at 60 years until Regulation 31 was prospectively amended, and the contrary orders were invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193762</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>