https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312091 Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed on or before 31 March 2013 were held not entitled to parity with Public Prosecutors in the age of superannuation. The Court found the two posts legally distinct: Assistant Public Prosecutors were selected through the Public Service Commission and governed by government service rules, while Public Prosecutors were appointed from a panel of advocates for fixed terms without government service benefits. Similarity in duties or their status as officers of the Court was held insufficient to require equal retirement age. The challenge to differential superannuation ages was rejected, including the cut-off-based distinction tied to different pension regimes. en-us Thu, 17 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jan 2024 17:08:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312091 Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed on or before 31 March 2013 were held not entitled to parity with Public Prosecutors in the age of superannuation. The Court found the two posts legally distinct: Assistant Public Prosecutors were selected through the Public Service Commission and governed by government service rules, while Public Prosecutors were appointed from a panel of advocates for fixed terms without government service benefits. Similarity in duties or their status as officers of the Court was held insufficient to require equal retirement age. The challenge to differential superannuation ages was rejected, including the cut-off-based distinction tied to different pension regimes. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312091