<?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>1997 (2) TMI 599 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303571</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court clarified that approval from the Central Government for rules under Article 229 of the Constitution pertains only to financial matters, not all conditions of service. The enforcement date of High Court rules regarding Assistant posts and seniority was determined to be March 1, 1974, unless specifically requiring approval. The High Court&#039;s judgment was overturned, directing recalculations of vacancies and adjustments in the cadre of assistants based on the correct enforcement date of the rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2022 13:23:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=686554" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (2) TMI 599 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303571</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court clarified that approval from the Central Government for rules under Article 229 of the Constitution pertains only to financial matters, not all conditions of service. The enforcement date of High Court rules regarding Assistant posts and seniority was determined to be March 1, 1974, unless specifically requiring approval. The High Court&#039;s judgment was overturned, directing recalculations of vacancies and adjustments in the cadre of assistants based on the correct enforcement date of the rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303571</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>