Talk:Creamy layer

message: This definition from "Sattanathan Commission" is debatable. It looks like the commission wants to maintain the nomenclature defaming "Off Backward Class" and withdraw the facilities. BalanceRestored 09:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creamy layer

message: i dont feel the need to give more reference than already stated..as the calculation is quite simple..divide 250,000 by 4 for one individual..then divide by 365 to get per day per hEAD.. then divide by 40 to get the value in dollars...simple!!Cityvalyu (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: about the calculation

message: Any information about why the creamy layer has been put "ONLY" for OBC and not for SC/ST?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.2.252 (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Only OBC?

message: The article talks about "SCs" and "STs" but fails to explain what they are. Could someone please explain this? JIP | Talk 18:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: These unexplained appbreviations are called out with  tags now, and should remain so until they are clarified.  Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  SCs and STs 

message: The period to which the current and interim rupee creamy layer income caps apply is not stated in the lede, but may reasonably be presumed to be per annum (per 1 year), since this appears with the 100,000 rupee original figure. However, in the main body, the 600,000 figure is stated to apply to a 3 year period. This discrepancy between main body text and lede needs to be rectified.
At the same time, the article as a whole needs to be read by a person informed on Indain matters, but familiar with Western English-speaking audiences, so any remaining ambiguities of abbreviation and nomenclature are removed. There were, before I began today, three different abbreviation of rupees (symbol, INR, and Rs), and two different presentation of numbers on the order of 100,000 (general Western style, versus Indian style). I have standardized all of these, hopefully without error, but the edits would be checked by someone with both Indian and Western understandings. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits of this date

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Creamy layer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.business-standard.com/common/news_article.php?leftnm=3&autono=319771
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 12:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Creamy layer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120711025932/http://www.jee.iitm.ac.in:80/ to http://jee.iitm.ac.in/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have just added new link regarding creamy layer.
Creamy layer can't be excluded from backward classes on sole basis of economy.Just take a look of it. Similar to that of Indra sawney case. Steel pluto (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supreme court about creamy layer