P.Karunakaran vs The Union Of India on 4 October, 2013
In State of M.P. and another Vs. S.S.Kourav and Others (1995 (3) SCC 270), it has been held by the Apex Court as follows:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 270 (0.64 seconds)Shri Gauri Dutt vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Anr. on 19 May, 2009
In case of State of M.P. and Others v. S.S. Kourav and
Others, 1995 (3) S.C.C 270, it was held :-
G.S. Puri vs Indian Oil Corporation on 9 February, 1996
In State of Madhya Pradesh & Another Vs. S.S. Kourav & Ors. 1995 Lab. & I.C. 1574 (SC) it has been reiterated that the courts or Tribunals are not appellate for to decide on transfers of the employees on administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts or. Tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administration system by transferring the officials to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by malafides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation.
Shri Sanjeev Kapoor vs Ntpc Ltd. And Anr. on 27 September, 2021
48. Mr. Ghose is justified in relying upon the judgment in the
case of State of M.P. & Anr. v. S.S. Kourav & Ors., (supra),
wherein the Supreme Court has in para 4 & 6 has held as under:
P.D. Patel Ayurveda Hospital vs Director Of Primary Education on 28 January, 2002
In my view the order of the Labour Court is without jurisdiction and contrary to sections 33 and 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and even against the general principles of transfer which I have discussed in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board (supra) and also in the case of State of M.P. vs. S.S.Kourav & ors. (supra) have not been considered by the Labour Court in this behalf.
N. Ramana Babu vs The Officer In Charge, on 5 February, 2021
The petitioner has made an attempt to mislead the Court.
During his past 20 years of service, the petitioner has served 12.4
years in Eastern region out of which he has served 8.5
years in Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner should have taken care of
all the property related issues during that period at Visakhapatnam.
The petitioner is not entitled to question the transfer in view of the
law laid down by the Apex Court in "Shilpi Bose v. State of
Bihar1" and "State of M.P. v. S.S.Kourav2". In view of the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the judgments (referred supra), and the
facts narrated above, the petitioner is disentitled to question the
transfer order and this Court cannot interfere with such transfer as
the services of the petitioner are essential at present station of
transfer i.e. at ROC, Kolkata.
Chandragupt Saxena vs Bank Of Boroda on 1 October, 2020
In the case of State of M.P. Anr. Vs. S.S. Kourav &
Others (1995) 3 SCC 270 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
Smti. Rupanylla Kharbamon vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors. on 24 February, 2020
In the case of State of M.P. & Anr v. S.S. Kourav & Ors (supra) at
paragraph 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
Tarachand Nayak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 July, 2024
The binding nature of the
guidelines, in our humble view, has to be understood
in the context of Mrs. Shilpi Bose (supra), S.L. Abbas
(supra), Jagjit Singh Mehta (supra) and S.S. Kaurav
and others (supra). To elaborate the instructions or the
guidelines do not confer any enforceable right on an
employee. He has no vested right to remain at one post
or the other. However, while ordering a transfer the
authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by
the Government whether an order of transfer is passed
11 WP-29144-2022
in violation of the guidelines or the executive
instructions. The action of the State Government
should not be mala fide or malicious and should be
tested on the anvil and touchstone of acceptable
reasonableness. In view of the aforesaid pronunciation
of law by the Apex Court in several cases, which we
have referred hereinabove, we are of the considered
opinion that the transfer policy formulated by the State
is not enforceable as the employee does have a right
and the Courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere in
the order of transfer. The Court can interfere if there is
violation of mandatory statutory rule or if the action of
the Government is capricious, malicious, cavalier and
fanciful. What would constitute these components that
would depend on facts of each case as the same can be
neither illustratively or exhaustively stated. In fact,
that is not warrantable to be stated. We proceed to hold
that in case an order of transfer is assailed on the
ground that there has been violation of the policy, the
proper remedy is to approach the authorities by
pointing out the violation and it is expected of the
authorities to deal with the same keeping in mind the
policy guidelines with utmost objectivity."
Sunil Kumar vs Union Of India on 16 December, 2022
In S.S. Kourav (supra)
"4. It is contended for the respondent that the respondent had
already worked at Jagdalpur from 1982 to 1989 and when he was
transferred to Bhopal, there was no justification to retransfer him
7 MP-5559-2022
again to Jagdalpur. We cannot appreciate these grounds. The
courts or tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers
of officers on administrative grounds. The wheels of
administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the courts
or tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the
administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places.
It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such
decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides
or by extraneous consideration without any factual background
foundation. In this case we have seen that on the administrative
grounds the transfer orders came to be issued. Therefore, we
cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular
place."