Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 49 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing Kumari Parul Awasthi vs The Managing Director U.P. Jal Nigam & ... on 28 August, 2010

Mrs Binu Sunil vs M/O Agriculture on 28 February, 2018

While the Hon'ble Court did not agree that the allegation of mala fide made by the appellant had to be specifically denied in the counter 24 OA No.424/2017 filed by the respondents, it held that the impugned transfer order passed in that case is unsupported by any reason to show that it was necessitated by exigency of service or public interest and hence termed the order as mala fide.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Lalsimdik Tusing vs M/O Railways on 21 February, 2020

However, proposition of law - laid down by the Hon 'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarvesh | Kumar Awasthi Vs. UP. Jal Nigam and others Is not ail disputed but same is easily distinguishable in the present facts of the cose. In Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi the petitioner was fransfered on recommendation of some Minister/MLA "inthe backdrop of some complaint filed against him. In such backdrop the Han'ble Apex Court observed that an order of transfer should no! be arbitrary and mala-fide. However, in. the. present case, the doplicant has been transferred purely on administrative reasons because his service is required at Alipurdvar after pasting of Sri SS. Kambie as Chairman, RRC. According fo him, the applicant - unnecessarily dragged the issue of respondent No. 3 fo make oul g case of axtraneous consideration, whereas there was no such extraneous consideration in modification _ af posting of resoondent No. 3.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bindu Venugopal vs M/O Agriculture on 28 February, 2018

20. While the Hon'ble Court did not agree that the allegation of mala fide made by the appellant had to be specifically denied in the counter filed by the respondents, it held that the impugned transfer order passed in that case is unsupported by any reason to show that it was necessitated by exigency of service or public interest and hence termed the order as mala fide.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs Sheela Raj vs M/O Agriculture on 28 February, 2018

18. While the Hon'ble Court did not agree that the allegation of mala fide made by the appellant had to be specifically denied in the counter filed by the respondents, it held that the impugned transfer order passed in that case is unsupported by any reason to show that it was necessitated by exigency of service or public 23 OA No.425/2017 interest and hence termed the order as mala fide.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ajay Kumar Mishra vs Inspector General Of Police ... on 31 July, 2018

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that taking into consideration the aforesaid facts as well as the letter dated 17.11.2017, it is apparent that the impugned transfer order is not as innocuous as is sought to be made out by the respondents rather it is punitive. The further submission on the part of petitioner is that in the case of Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi Vs. U.P. Jal Nigam and Ors before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP (C) No. 2523 of 2001, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that transfer of officers are required to be effected on the basis of set norms or guide-lines and that that the power of transferring an officer cannot be wielded arbitrary, mala fide or an exercise against efficient and independent officer or at the instance of politicians whose work is not done by the concerned officer. Consequently, the Chief Secretary was required to file necessary affidavit within six weeks pointing out rules and regulations for effecting transfers of officers including higher officers such as District Magistrate. Sri Pawar contends that on the basis of the said order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 04.09.2001, the Chief Secretary had filed an undertaking and subsequently the said case was disposed of. However, no such order has been filed with regard to indicate the said fact. Be that as it may, the under noted discussions and the subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court will not necessitate any further discussion on this aspect.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 4 - A Moin - Full Document

T.P.S. Bhadoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 July, 2015

In 2003 (11) SCC 740 (Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi Vs. U.P. Jal Nigam and others) the Apex Court held that the power of transferring an officer cannot be wielded arbitrarily, malafide or an exercise against efficient and independent officer or at the instance of politicians. For better administration, the officers concerned must have freedom from fear of being harassed by repeated transfers or transfers ordered at the instance of someone who has nothing to do with the business of administration.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bharatsinh Himmatsinh Champavat & 2 vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 6 August, 2015

31.   The   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in  Sarvesh   Kumar  Awasthi v. U.P. Jal Nigam, held as under:­   "In our view, transfer of officers is required to be  effected   on   the   basis   of   set   norms   or   guidelines.  The   power   of   transferring   an   officer   cannot   be  wielded   arbitrarily,   mala   fide   or   an   exercise  against efficient and independent officer or at the  instance   of   politicians   whose   work   is   not   done   by  the   officer   concerned.   For   better   administration,  the officers concerned  must have freedom  from fear  of being harassed by repeated transfers or transfers  ordered at the instance of someone who has nothing  to do with the business of administration."
Gujarat High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 2 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next