<?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>2001 (1) TMI 999 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200459</link>
    <description>Employees of Unit-Run Canteens were treated as Government servants for jurisdictional purposes because the canteens operated under Defence control, with recruitment, supervision and discipline integrated into the establishment; the Central Administrative Tribunal could therefore entertain their applications. However, that status did not confer automatic parity with regular Government servants for every service benefit. As the applicable service rules and administrative instructions did not adopt the Fundamental Rules for these employees, directions granting full regular benefits and review of subsistence allowance under those Rules were unsustainable. The minimum of the regular pay scale was nevertheless upheld, and the status and jurisdiction finding was affirmed while full service parity was curtailed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2018 11:45:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=515173" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 999 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200459</link>
      <description>Employees of Unit-Run Canteens were treated as Government servants for jurisdictional purposes because the canteens operated under Defence control, with recruitment, supervision and discipline integrated into the establishment; the Central Administrative Tribunal could therefore entertain their applications. However, that status did not confer automatic parity with regular Government servants for every service benefit. As the applicable service rules and administrative instructions did not adopt the Fundamental Rules for these employees, directions granting full regular benefits and review of subsistence allowance under those Rules were unsustainable. The minimum of the regular pay scale was nevertheless upheld, and the status and jurisdiction finding was affirmed while full service parity was curtailed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200459</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>