<?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>1983 (8) TMI 315 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468358</link>
    <description>A temporary or probationary public servant does not acquire deemed confirmation merely by expiry of the probation period unless the service rules or appointment terms expressly provide for automatic confirmation. Where a termination clause allows immediate discharge only on payment in lieu of notice, that payment must accompany service of the order for the termination to operate validly. An innocuously worded termination may also be treated as punitive if it is founded on alleged misconduct after an inquiry, attracting Article 311(2). The action may further fail where the authority retains juniors but gives no satisfactory explanation for singling out one employee, rendering the termination arbitrary and discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 16:49:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (8) TMI 315 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468358</link>
      <description>A temporary or probationary public servant does not acquire deemed confirmation merely by expiry of the probation period unless the service rules or appointment terms expressly provide for automatic confirmation. Where a termination clause allows immediate discharge only on payment in lieu of notice, that payment must accompany service of the order for the termination to operate validly. An innocuously worded termination may also be treated as punitive if it is founded on alleged misconduct after an inquiry, attracting Article 311(2). The action may further fail where the authority retains juniors but gives no satisfactory explanation for singling out one employee, rendering the termination arbitrary and discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>