<?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>2006 (4) TMI 565 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283920</link>
    <description>Deputed employees of U.P. Jal Nigam who opted for absorption in the Development Authority Centralised Service could not claim past service in the parent body for seniority because the governing scheme allowed absorption only on the stated terms and did not confer a statutory right to count that service. The State could prescribe conditions for absorption, and employees who accepted those terms could not later challenge the resulting seniority position under Articles 14 and 16. The text also notes that inter se seniority affecting absent appointees should not be decided in their absence, so impleadment of affected employees was necessary before granting such relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=591505" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 565 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283920</link>
      <description>Deputed employees of U.P. Jal Nigam who opted for absorption in the Development Authority Centralised Service could not claim past service in the parent body for seniority because the governing scheme allowed absorption only on the stated terms and did not confer a statutory right to count that service. The State could prescribe conditions for absorption, and employees who accepted those terms could not later challenge the resulting seniority position under Articles 14 and 16. The text also notes that inter se seniority affecting absent appointees should not be decided in their absence, so impleadment of affected employees was necessary before granting such relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283920</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>