<?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>2015 (2) TMI 1261 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197749</link>
    <description>The proviso to Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act was interpreted as extending the exemption power to the entire section because it refers to &quot;this Section&quot;. On that reading, a valid exemption notification for the CRPF could cover dispensation from service and reduction in rank where the statutory scheme and the physically demanding nature of the work justified exclusion. Section 73 was treated as a machinery provision on laying notifications before Parliament, not as a restriction on the substantive scope of Section 47. The relevant notification was applied by reference to the date of dispensing with service, and the challenge based on the second proviso to sub-section (1) was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2018 07:39:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504378" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 1261 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197749</link>
      <description>The proviso to Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act was interpreted as extending the exemption power to the entire section because it refers to &quot;this Section&quot;. On that reading, a valid exemption notification for the CRPF could cover dispensation from service and reduction in rank where the statutory scheme and the physically demanding nature of the work justified exclusion. Section 73 was treated as a machinery provision on laying notifications before Parliament, not as a restriction on the substantive scope of Section 47. The relevant notification was applied by reference to the date of dispensing with service, and the challenge based on the second proviso to sub-section (1) was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>