https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757618 Entitlement under a subsidy scheme, once conclusively determined and quantified, cannot be withheld by the State on a later objection of missing finance department concurrence or cabinet approval where earlier administrative and judicial directions required implementation. The text also notes that differential treatment between similarly placed beneficiaries offends Article 14 in a welfare subsidy context, and that negative equality does not apply where the comparator payment is not shown to be illegal. The State's internal approval objections are therefore treated as insufficient to defeat a concluded entitlement. en-us Mon, 26 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Aug 2024 19:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757618 Entitlement under a subsidy scheme, once conclusively determined and quantified, cannot be withheld by the State on a later objection of missing finance department concurrence or cabinet approval where earlier administrative and judicial directions required implementation. The text also notes that differential treatment between similarly placed beneficiaries offends Article 14 in a welfare subsidy context, and that negative equality does not apply where the comparator payment is not shown to be illegal. The State's internal approval objections are therefore treated as insufficient to defeat a concluded entitlement. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 26 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757618