<?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>2013 (5) TMI 1079 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460630</link>
    <description>Executive integration of Leprosy Inspectors into the public health cadre was valid even without amending the statutory service rules because the order operated within the existing Article 309 framework and did not alter the rules. Once re-designated as Health Inspector Grade IB and absorbed into a common cadre performing the same duties as Health Inspector Grade IA, the employees could not be treated differently on the basis of their original source of recruitment. Protection of pre-existing service for seniority, parity in pay, and equal promotional consideration followed from the merger. The denial of seniority and promotion from the date of integration was discriminatory and inconsistent with Articles 14 and 16.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2025 12:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=795979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 1079 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460630</link>
      <description>Executive integration of Leprosy Inspectors into the public health cadre was valid even without amending the statutory service rules because the order operated within the existing Article 309 framework and did not alter the rules. Once re-designated as Health Inspector Grade IB and absorbed into a common cadre performing the same duties as Health Inspector Grade IA, the employees could not be treated differently on the basis of their original source of recruitment. Protection of pre-existing service for seniority, parity in pay, and equal promotional consideration followed from the merger. The denial of seniority and promotion from the date of integration was discriminatory and inconsistent with Articles 14 and 16.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460630</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>