<?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>1966 (3) TMI 94 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277789</link>
    <description>A printed official periodical carrying public news and notifications can fall within the statutory meaning of a newspaper, and proof-readers employed in that newspaper establishment can satisfy the definition of working journalist. On that basis, the Gazette of India published by the Government of India Press was treated as a newspaper and the petitioners were held to be working journalists under the Act. Section 19-B, which withdraws the Act&#039;s benefit from Government employees governed by the specified service rules, was applied to the petitioners and was held not to violate Article 14 because the classification had an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the Act&#039;s object.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2018 16:45:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=548854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (3) TMI 94 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277789</link>
      <description>A printed official periodical carrying public news and notifications can fall within the statutory meaning of a newspaper, and proof-readers employed in that newspaper establishment can satisfy the definition of working journalist. On that basis, the Gazette of India published by the Government of India Press was treated as a newspaper and the petitioners were held to be working journalists under the Act. Section 19-B, which withdraws the Act&#039;s benefit from Government employees governed by the specified service rules, was applied to the petitioners and was held not to violate Article 14 because the classification had an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the Act&#039;s object.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277789</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>