Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13056 (3.44 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India And Ors vs S.L. Abbas on 27 April, 1993

Hon Ble Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj vs Union Of India Through Its on 9 May, 2013

Also in Union of India and Others Vs. S.L.Abbas (ibid), it is viewed that while ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject and if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigency of administration.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 38 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

N.L. Kushwaha vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 15 September, 2005

4. Transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or visited by mala fide or infraction of any prescribed norms of principles governing the transfer (see Abani Kama Ray v. State of Orissa), Unless the order of transfer is visited by mala fide or is made in violation of operative guidelines, the Court cannot interfere with it (see Union of India v. S.L. Abbas). Who should be transferred and posted where is a matter for the administrative authority to decide.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... vs Shyam Shivajirao Lohi And Another on 18 March, 2025

12. The learned AGP also relied on certain observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, on going through the said observations in the judgments relied by the learned AGP, they are also in respect of transfer cases. However, in case of Union of India vs. S. L. Abbas (supra), the scope of judicial review is clarified and it has been observed that such review is permissible only when there is a clear violation of the statutory provision or the transfer is persuaded by mala fide. Here in this case, we are dealing with the issue of modification in the earlier places of posting of the petitioner - Archana and the respondent - Shyam Lohi. The learned Tribunal has set aside such modification mainly by observing that it is arbitrary and passed without assigning any reason. Admittedly, the chronology of the facts is to be considered to ascertain whether there was influence on the part of the petitioner - Archana to cause such modification.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Archana Shailendra Gaikwad vs Shyam Shivajirao Lohi And Others on 18 March, 2025

12. The learned AGP also relied on certain observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, on going through the said observations in the judgments relied by the learned AGP, they are also in respect of transfer cases. However, in case of Union of India vs. S. L. Abbas (supra), the scope of judicial review is clarified and it has been observed that such review is permissible only when there is a clear violation of the statutory provision or the transfer is persuaded by mala fide. Here in this case, we are dealing with the issue of modification in the earlier places of posting of the petitioner - Archana and the respondent - Shyam Lohi. The learned Tribunal has set aside such modification mainly by observing that it is arbitrary and passed without assigning any reason. Admittedly, the chronology of the facts is to be considered to ascertain whether there was influence on the part of the petitioner - Archana to cause such modification.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Bithika Choudhury vs State Of Tripura on 20 October, 2020

[22] In the case of Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas (Supra) the Apex Court has held that the executive instructions are in the nature of guidelines which have no statutory force. As a result, the privilege conferred on the appellant under the memorandum dated 28.02.1994 does not vest on her any immunity from transfer and she cannot use the privilege as a legally enforceable right.
Tripura High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S G Chattopadhyay - Full Document

Kedar Singh vs Employees State Insurance Corporation ... on 10 April, 2026

In the matter of Union of India Vs. S. L. Abbas (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has laid down that while ordering the transfer, there is no doubt that the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly, if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manoranjan Debbarma vs M/O Defence on 19 December, 2025

In the light of the ratio of the Judgement passed in the case of Union of India vs S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357 (supra), the authorities are not obliged to justify the transfer by adducing the reasons thereof and that the executive instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force. Then, the guidelines give the applicants opportunity for consideration by the authorities, which in the instant case the respondent authorities have done and the PACB has reviewed and decided on each representation individually including that of the applicant."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next