<?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>1992 (3) TMI 367 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306545</link>
    <description>An employee continued in service after amalgamation of banks under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is entitled only to parity with employees of corresponding rank or status in the transferee bank. The scheme may provide for continuance of service, but the proviso requires that, after the relevant period, service conditions align with those applicable in the transferee bank, including superannuation age. The employee therefore does not acquire a vested right to retain the transferor bank&#039;s more favourable retirement age. The contrary view was rejected, and the governing retirement age was held to be that applicable in the transferee bank.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2023 11:39:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=704165" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (3) TMI 367 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306545</link>
      <description>An employee continued in service after amalgamation of banks under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is entitled only to parity with employees of corresponding rank or status in the transferee bank. The scheme may provide for continuance of service, but the proviso requires that, after the relevant period, service conditions align with those applicable in the transferee bank, including superannuation age. The employee therefore does not acquire a vested right to retain the transferor bank&#039;s more favourable retirement age. The contrary view was rejected, and the governing retirement age was held to be that applicable in the transferee bank.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306545</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>