https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307701 Past service in the erstwhile A.T.L. could not be counted as qualifying service for pension after absorption in State service because the governing pension framework required service under Government and satisfaction of the Civil Services Regulations conditions of substantive, permanent, Government-paid service. The earlier A.T.L. service was not shown to be pensionable, and the government orders relied on applied only to specified categories not covering the corporation on the pleaded facts. The Division Bench authority cited for pay protection was distinguished, while the later ruling rejected inclusion of A.T.L. service for pension in the absence of a specific rule. The rejection of the pension claim was upheld. en-us Thu, 26 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 30 Apr 2023 20:35:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307701 Past service in the erstwhile A.T.L. could not be counted as qualifying service for pension after absorption in State service because the governing pension framework required service under Government and satisfaction of the Civil Services Regulations conditions of substantive, permanent, Government-paid service. The earlier A.T.L. service was not shown to be pensionable, and the government orders relied on applied only to specified categories not covering the corporation on the pleaded facts. The Division Bench authority cited for pay protection was distinguished, while the later ruling rejected inclusion of A.T.L. service for pension in the absence of a specific rule. The rejection of the pension claim was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 26 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307701