<?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>2015 (1) TMI 1502 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312211</link>
    <description>An autonomous body governed by its own approved service rules is not automatically covered by a pension office memorandum framed for Central Government employees. The National Water Development Agency employees could not claim pension parity because they were not shown to be similarly situated to Central Government staff. The Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti employees also fell outside the memorandum because the Samiti was established after the relevant cut-off date, and a separate pension framework with its own cut-off date was not shown to be arbitrary or discriminatory. The challenge to denial of pensionary benefits therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2024 23:10:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=742653" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 1502 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312211</link>
      <description>An autonomous body governed by its own approved service rules is not automatically covered by a pension office memorandum framed for Central Government employees. The National Water Development Agency employees could not claim pension parity because they were not shown to be similarly situated to Central Government staff. The Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti employees also fell outside the memorandum because the Samiti was established after the relevant cut-off date, and a separate pension framework with its own cut-off date was not shown to be arbitrary or discriminatory. The challenge to denial of pensionary benefits therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>