<?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>2015 (11) TMI 1888 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307691</link>
    <description>The Court held that the Rescission Rules 2003 did not have retrospective operation but effectively terminated the right of retrenched employees for absorption acquired under the 1991 Rules from April 8, 2003 onwards, except for those absorbed between May 9, 1991, and April 8, 2003. The protection of pay scale and last drawn salary of retrenched employees was ensured, and the claim for including previous services for pensionary benefits was denied due to the absence of specific provisions in the relevant rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Apr 2023 20:38:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=712224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 1888 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307691</link>
      <description>The Court held that the Rescission Rules 2003 did not have retrospective operation but effectively terminated the right of retrenched employees for absorption acquired under the 1991 Rules from April 8, 2003 onwards, except for those absorbed between May 9, 1991, and April 8, 2003. The protection of pay scale and last drawn salary of retrenched employees was ensured, and the claim for including previous services for pensionary benefits was denied due to the absence of specific provisions in the relevant rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307691</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>