<?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 probationer or temporary servant does not acquire confirmed status merely by continued service after probation unless the service rules or an express order so provide. Where the appointment term required contemporaneous payment of notice-period pay and allowances for a forthwith termination, failure to make that payment invalidated the discharge. The Bombay HC also treated the order as punitive in substance because it was founded on an inquiry into alleged misconduct without a fair opportunity of defence, attracting Article 311(2). The termination was further held arbitrary and discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16 because no rational basis was disclosed for singling out the employee while juniors were retained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 16:49:29 +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 probationer or temporary servant does not acquire confirmed status merely by continued service after probation unless the service rules or an express order so provide. Where the appointment term required contemporaneous payment of notice-period pay and allowances for a forthwith termination, failure to make that payment invalidated the discharge. The Bombay HC also treated the order as punitive in substance because it was founded on an inquiry into alleged misconduct without a fair opportunity of defence, attracting Article 311(2). The termination was further held arbitrary and discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16 because no rational basis was disclosed for singling out the employee while juniors were retained.</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>