<?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>2007 (2) TMI 727 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314382</link>
    <description>Prasar Bharati&#039;s transfer power was examined in relation to employees who remained Central Government employees but worked under its functional control. The Act contemplated transfer to the Corporation through a Central Government order under Section 11 and an employee option, but no such order had been issued. The Court treated the long-standing working arrangement as deemed deputation, distinguished it from transfer, and applied the functional test to the employment relationship. In the absence of framed regulations, the Corporation was recognised as having an implied administrative power to transfer employees, and the transfers were found neither arbitrary nor irrational.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2024 15:32:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=755390" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 727 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314382</link>
      <description>Prasar Bharati&#039;s transfer power was examined in relation to employees who remained Central Government employees but worked under its functional control. The Act contemplated transfer to the Corporation through a Central Government order under Section 11 and an employee option, but no such order had been issued. The Court treated the long-standing working arrangement as deemed deputation, distinguished it from transfer, and applied the functional test to the employment relationship. In the absence of framed regulations, the Corporation was recognised as having an implied administrative power to transfer employees, and the transfers were found neither arbitrary nor irrational.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314382</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>