<?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>2002 (2) TMI 1363 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459818</link>
    <description>The HC ruled that the State Government&#039;s decision to discontinue higher HRA and CCA for Mangalore University employees was lawful, as Konaje did not qualify for the higher rates. Recovery of excess payments was restricted to amounts paid after 31.3.1997 due to administrative delays and reliance on prior orders. The court found no Article 14 violation, as different urban classifications justified the treatment of employees in Bangalore and Mangalore. Although principles of natural justice were not fully observed, the procedural lapse did not invalidate the recovery orders, as no substantial prejudice to employees was demonstrated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Dec 2024 17:19:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=785158" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 1363 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459818</link>
      <description>The HC ruled that the State Government&#039;s decision to discontinue higher HRA and CCA for Mangalore University employees was lawful, as Konaje did not qualify for the higher rates. Recovery of excess payments was restricted to amounts paid after 31.3.1997 due to administrative delays and reliance on prior orders. The court found no Article 14 violation, as different urban classifications justified the treatment of employees in Bangalore and Mangalore. Although principles of natural justice were not fully observed, the procedural lapse did not invalidate the recovery orders, as no substantial prejudice to employees was demonstrated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459818</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>