<?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>2018 (11) TMI 889 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370546</link>
    <description>Employees sponsored through UPNL were treated as serving the State where the arrangement operated as an intermediary camouflage and the State exercised real disciplinary and financial control. On that footing, phased regularization was held permissible, notwithstanding reliance on Uma Devi, because the State had itself framed regularization measures and the nominal contractual form could not defeat equality-based relief. Employees performing comparable duties were also held entitled to at least the minimum applicable pay-scale with dearness allowance and arrears, as denial of such wages was arbitrary. Salary deductions towards GST and Service Tax were held impermissible because no authority of law supported them.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 14:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542580" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 889 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370546</link>
      <description>Employees sponsored through UPNL were treated as serving the State where the arrangement operated as an intermediary camouflage and the State exercised real disciplinary and financial control. On that footing, phased regularization was held permissible, notwithstanding reliance on Uma Devi, because the State had itself framed regularization measures and the nominal contractual form could not defeat equality-based relief. Employees performing comparable duties were also held entitled to at least the minimum applicable pay-scale with dearness allowance and arrears, as denial of such wages was arbitrary. Salary deductions towards GST and Service Tax were held impermissible because no authority of law supported them.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370546</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>