<?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>2002 (10) TMI 802 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281532</link>
    <description>The SC held that retrospective legislation cannot validly extinguish accrued service rights or compel repayment of benefits already lawfully received where it operates arbitrarily or defeats final rights. Sections 2 and 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Service Untrained Teachers Act, 1991 were therefore invalid to the extent they retrospectively disturbed settled pay fixation and recovery of amounts, and the statute could operate only prospectively. The Court also held that service in a higher pay scale, granted for limited administrative purposes, did not by itself satisfy the independent of the automatic advancement scheme. The claim to automatic advancement benefits was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Jun 2019 12:02:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=576221" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 802 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281532</link>
      <description>The SC held that retrospective legislation cannot validly extinguish accrued service rights or compel repayment of benefits already lawfully received where it operates arbitrarily or defeats final rights. Sections 2 and 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Service Untrained Teachers Act, 1991 were therefore invalid to the extent they retrospectively disturbed settled pay fixation and recovery of amounts, and the statute could operate only prospectively. The Court also held that service in a higher pay scale, granted for limited administrative purposes, did not by itself satisfy the independent of the automatic advancement scheme. The claim to automatic advancement benefits was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>