<?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>1967 (4) TMI 215 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291337</link>
    <description>Transfer from Inspector-General of Registration to Accommodation Controller was held not to amount to reduction in rank, because the new post was not shown to be inferior and the appellant retained the same scale of pay, so Article 311 was not attracted. The service arrangement also did not deprive him of lien on a permanent post: a supernumerary post was created to preserve his lien, and that protection kept pension and gratuity rights intact, so the transfer was not punitive removal. The challenge to the cadre arrangement failed because cadre strength and composition under the IAS (Cadre) Rules may differ between States according to local conditions, and uniform treatment across States is not required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2020 12:15:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=627119" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (4) TMI 215 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291337</link>
      <description>Transfer from Inspector-General of Registration to Accommodation Controller was held not to amount to reduction in rank, because the new post was not shown to be inferior and the appellant retained the same scale of pay, so Article 311 was not attracted. The service arrangement also did not deprive him of lien on a permanent post: a supernumerary post was created to preserve his lien, and that protection kept pension and gratuity rights intact, so the transfer was not punitive removal. The challenge to the cadre arrangement failed because cadre strength and composition under the IAS (Cadre) Rules may differ between States according to local conditions, and uniform treatment across States is not required.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291337</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>