<?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>1996 (12) TMI 421 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309734</link>
    <description>Seniority of regularised ad hoc employees must be fixed strictly from the date of regularisation under the governing service rules, so they cannot rank above direct recruits appointed earlier. An administrative order cannot retrospectively deem such employees permanent from an earlier date or alter seniority in a manner inconsistent with the statutory rules. The Court therefore treated the challenged order as invalid and directed that seniority and selection-grade eligibility be reconsidered strictly in accordance with the Rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2023 18:06:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=726554" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (12) TMI 421 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309734</link>
      <description>Seniority of regularised ad hoc employees must be fixed strictly from the date of regularisation under the governing service rules, so they cannot rank above direct recruits appointed earlier. An administrative order cannot retrospectively deem such employees permanent from an earlier date or alter seniority in a manner inconsistent with the statutory rules. The Court therefore treated the challenged order as invalid and directed that seniority and selection-grade eligibility be reconsidered strictly in accordance with the Rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309734</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>