<?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>2003 (4) TMI 591 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275029</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court held that the respondents appointed under the &#039;Million Wells Scheme&#039; were not entitled to regularization of services or regular pay-scales as they were temporary appointments for the specific scheme, which ended in 1994. The Court emphasized that employees hired for projects do not automatically gain rights for regular positions or pay after project completion. The closure of the scheme led to termination of their services, with the Court ruling against their regularization. The High Court&#039;s decision was set aside, leaving future employment prospects subject to discretion and suitability without addressing the retention of junior employees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2018 10:05:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=534524" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (4) TMI 591 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275029</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court held that the respondents appointed under the &#039;Million Wells Scheme&#039; were not entitled to regularization of services or regular pay-scales as they were temporary appointments for the specific scheme, which ended in 1994. The Court emphasized that employees hired for projects do not automatically gain rights for regular positions or pay after project completion. The closure of the scheme led to termination of their services, with the Court ruling against their regularization. The High Court&#039;s decision was set aside, leaving future employment prospects subject to discretion and suitability without addressing the retention of junior employees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>