<?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>1986 (1) TMI 383 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275776</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the termination order of a temporary government servant, ruling that the payment of notice salary was not a prerequisite for termination under the amended Rule 5(1)(b) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The Court clarified that the respondent&#039;s appointment as a temporary employee was valid, despite being placed on probation, and that the termination was in accordance with the rules governing service conditions. The Division Bench&#039;s decision was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, with the Court suggesting the appellants consider providing the respondent with another job.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:06:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538542" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (1) TMI 383 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275776</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the termination order of a temporary government servant, ruling that the payment of notice salary was not a prerequisite for termination under the amended Rule 5(1)(b) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The Court clarified that the respondent&#039;s appointment as a temporary employee was valid, despite being placed on probation, and that the termination was in accordance with the rules governing service conditions. The Division Bench&#039;s decision was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, with the Court suggesting the appellants consider providing the respondent with another job.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275776</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>