<?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>2002 (8) TMI 891 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311816</link>
    <description>A suspended government servant remains entitled to subsistence allowance under Rule 96 of the Bihar Service Code because suspension does not sever the employer-employee relationship. Rule 96(2) permits the State to require a certificate that the employee is not engaged in other employment, business, profession or vocation, but the allowance cannot be denied unless that certificate was first demanded and then not supplied. The text also makes clear that there is no rule requiring a suspended employee to mark attendance at headquarters. The stated effect is that subsistence allowance could not be refused on the grounds relied upon by the respondents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2024 15:48:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=740100" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 891 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311816</link>
      <description>A suspended government servant remains entitled to subsistence allowance under Rule 96 of the Bihar Service Code because suspension does not sever the employer-employee relationship. Rule 96(2) permits the State to require a certificate that the employee is not engaged in other employment, business, profession or vocation, but the allowance cannot be denied unless that certificate was first demanded and then not supplied. The text also makes clear that there is no rule requiring a suspended employee to mark attendance at headquarters. The stated effect is that subsistence allowance could not be refused on the grounds relied upon by the respondents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311816</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>