<?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>1970 (12) TMI 92 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197364</link>
    <description>Railway Fundamental Rules treat cadre and lien as continuing unless suspended or lawfully transferred, and permit transfer of lien to another permanent post in the same cadre. They also allow transfer of a railway servant to another post subject to the restriction that the new post must not carry less pay than the substantive post. On the stated facts, employees were permanently absorbed and transferred against available vacancies, and their seniority followed the lien attached to the permanent posts to which they moved. The challenge failed because no contravention of the statutory rules or absence of vacancies was shown, and the transfer of lien and seniority was treated as valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2018 18:18:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503064" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (12) TMI 92 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197364</link>
      <description>Railway Fundamental Rules treat cadre and lien as continuing unless suspended or lawfully transferred, and permit transfer of lien to another permanent post in the same cadre. They also allow transfer of a railway servant to another post subject to the restriction that the new post must not carry less pay than the substantive post. On the stated facts, employees were permanently absorbed and transferred against available vacancies, and their seniority followed the lien attached to the permanent posts to which they moved. The challenge failed because no contravention of the statutory rules or absence of vacancies was shown, and the transfer of lien and seniority was treated as valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197364</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>