<?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>2023 (9) TMI 1737 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465498</link>
    <description>A substitute school teacher who later obtained temporary status under the governing circular was entitled to have past service counted from that date on regular absorption, with continuity of service, pay re-fixation, and consequential retiral benefits. The circular treated three months&#039; continuous service as sufficient for temporary status, ignored gaps between engagements for that purpose, and required screening before regular absorption. A fresh claim for absorption as Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section, together with the related higher pay-scale claim, was rejected because it was inconsistent with the earlier record and barred by constructive res judicata.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Dec 2025 13:27:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874617" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (9) TMI 1737 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465498</link>
      <description>A substitute school teacher who later obtained temporary status under the governing circular was entitled to have past service counted from that date on regular absorption, with continuity of service, pay re-fixation, and consequential retiral benefits. The circular treated three months&#039; continuous service as sufficient for temporary status, ignored gaps between engagements for that purpose, and required screening before regular absorption. A fresh claim for absorption as Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section, together with the related higher pay-scale claim, was rejected because it was inconsistent with the earlier record and barred by constructive res judicata.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465498</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>