https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312163 Where service-regulation amendments require prior governmental approval, the effective date of an enhancement to the age of superannuation remains within the executive domain, and a court cannot rewrite a prospective Government Order into a retrospective one. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded the limits of judicial review by directing retrospective operation from an earlier date despite final rejection of the earlier proposal and the statutory approval framework. It further held that employees who had already superannuated before interim protection and before approved enhancement took effect were not entitled to salary or consequential benefits for the period not worked, as promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation did not arise on a mere recommendation subject to approval. en-us Thu, 15 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Feb 2024 19:23:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312163 Where service-regulation amendments require prior governmental approval, the effective date of an enhancement to the age of superannuation remains within the executive domain, and a court cannot rewrite a prospective Government Order into a retrospective one. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded the limits of judicial review by directing retrospective operation from an earlier date despite final rejection of the earlier proposal and the statutory approval framework. It further held that employees who had already superannuated before interim protection and before approved enhancement took effect were not entitled to salary or consequential benefits for the period not worked, as promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation did not arise on a mere recommendation subject to approval. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 15 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312163