<?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>1994 (8) TMI 317 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289780</link>
    <description>Compulsory retirement is not punitive, but it must rest on a bona fide assessment of the employee&#039;s entire service record and not on an isolated adverse entry. Judicial review remains limited, yet interference is justified where the authority acts arbitrarily, ignores vital material, or relies on irrelevant considerations. The Court found that the adverse 1987-88 report was treated as the sole basis for retirement while earlier and later confidential entries showing generally satisfactory and meritorious service were not properly considered. The fact that the employee had later been promoted also undermined reliance on that single entry. The retirement order was therefore invalid and liable to be set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2020 12:02:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=620217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (8) TMI 317 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289780</link>
      <description>Compulsory retirement is not punitive, but it must rest on a bona fide assessment of the employee&#039;s entire service record and not on an isolated adverse entry. Judicial review remains limited, yet interference is justified where the authority acts arbitrarily, ignores vital material, or relies on irrelevant considerations. The Court found that the adverse 1987-88 report was treated as the sole basis for retirement while earlier and later confidential entries showing generally satisfactory and meritorious service were not properly considered. The fact that the employee had later been promoted also undermined reliance on that single entry. The retirement order was therefore invalid and liable to be set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289780</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>