https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312085 The Supreme Court considered whether Jal Nigam employees could be subjected to different superannuation ages of 58 and 60 solely on the basis of source of recruitment. It held that such classification was impermissible under Article 14 because no intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the rule's object was shown, and the earlier special service regulation continued to operate absent express repeal. The Court also distinguished relief: employees who had litigated received salary up to 60 years, while others were treated as notionally continued to 60 years for re-fixation of pay and retirement benefits, with arrears limited to retirement benefits. en-us Tue, 02 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jan 2024 14:54:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312085 The Supreme Court considered whether Jal Nigam employees could be subjected to different superannuation ages of 58 and 60 solely on the basis of source of recruitment. It held that such classification was impermissible under Article 14 because no intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the rule's object was shown, and the earlier special service regulation continued to operate absent express repeal. The Court also distinguished relief: employees who had litigated received salary up to 60 years, while others were treated as notionally continued to 60 years for re-fixation of pay and retirement benefits, with arrears limited to retirement benefits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312085