<?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>2009 (7) TMI 1348 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD  BENCH)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280340</link>
    <description>Rule 16(1) of the All India Services (Death cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 permits a limited extension of service for a Chief Secretary in public interest, subject to State Government recommendation, full justification, and prior Central Government approval. The article notes that the Bombay High Court treated the proviso as supported by the All India Services Act, 1951 and the residuary relaxation power, and as containing sufficient safeguards to withstand claims of arbitrariness, discrimination, or lack of authority. It also records that the Court examined the decision-making process, accepted the Chief Minister&#039;s competence to forward the proposal, and rejected objections that the extension lacked public interest or that the matter was not suitable for public interest litigation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 May 2019 14:54:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=569171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1348 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD  BENCH)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280340</link>
      <description>Rule 16(1) of the All India Services (Death cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 permits a limited extension of service for a Chief Secretary in public interest, subject to State Government recommendation, full justification, and prior Central Government approval. The article notes that the Bombay High Court treated the proviso as supported by the All India Services Act, 1951 and the residuary relaxation power, and as containing sufficient safeguards to withstand claims of arbitrariness, discrimination, or lack of authority. It also records that the Court examined the decision-making process, accepted the Chief Minister&#039;s competence to forward the proposal, and rejected objections that the extension lacked public interest or that the matter was not suitable for public interest litigation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280340</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>