Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.62 seconds)
Documents citing K.R.Babu vs The State Of Kerala on 21 September, 2017

R Vaijayanthi Mala vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 2025

This writ petition is hence disposed of, directing the 2 nd respondent to effect mutation based on the Will in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Babu R. v. State of Kerala [2024 KHC OnLine 7141] and after calling for a report from the 3 rd respondent. Necessary action shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - T R Ravi - Full Document

Amit Kumar vs Directorate General Of Defence Estates on 7 May, 2026

6.4 Learned counsel also argued that the officers from the Reserve list cannot be granted retrospective seniority from the date they were not borne in the Cadre, as an officer cannot be granted seniority prior to his/her birth in the cadre adversely affecting the seniority of another officer who had been appointed before him. It is a settled law that a person is disentitled to claim seniority from a date he/she was not borne in the service is further emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgments in K. Meghachandra Singh and Ors. v Nigam Siro and others (2020), K. R. Babu vs State of Kerala (2018).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harendra Singh vs Defence on 7 May, 2026

6.4 Learned counsel also argued that the officers from the Reserve list cannot be granted retrospective seniority from the date they were not borne in the Cadre, as an officer cannot be granted seniority prior to his/her birth in the cadre adversely affecting the seniority of another officer who had been appointed before him. It is a settled law that a person is disentitled to claim seniority from a date he/she was not borne in the service is further emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgments in K. Meghachandra Singh and Ors. v Nigam Siro and others (2020), K. R. Babu vs State of Kerala (2018).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anita Kumari vs Govt. Medical College, Chandigarh on 6 July, 2018

9. Considering the above, the respondent no.3 was offered appointment, vide appointment letter dated 15.10.1999, copy of which is appended as Annexure R-3/1, and the applicant was given retrospective promotion in view of judicial pronouncement by this court. Since they were appointed on the same very day, as per rule formation, the direct recruitment Page 4 of 5 (OA No.060/00146/2017) will rank senior to the applicant appointed by way of promotion. We also find support in our view from judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K.R. Babu versus State of Kerala reported as 2017 (4) SCT 801 wherein identical issue came up for consideration and the Lordships have held that seniority is to be determined on the basis of effective date of appointment and not on the basis of date of joining.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P Gopinath - Full Document

Teresa Bindu vs The Village Officer on 9 March, 2026

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader, this Court directs the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P7 application for transfer of registry in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner will produce a copy of the judgment before the 3rd respondent, for compliance. Needless to say that, the dictum laid down in Babu R. v. State of Kerala [(2024) KHC 7141] will be taken into account by the 3 rd respondent,while acting upon Ext.P7 application. It was pointed out that W,P(C) No.8151 of 2026 . .4..
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A. Naushad vs State Of Kerala on 23 July, 2025

2. This Court is afraid whether that is a matter which 2025:KER:54830 W.P.(C.) No.26935 of 2025 -3- can be looked into by the 2 nd respondent/Tahsildar concerned, for the purpose of considering transfer of registry. At any rate, going by the judgment of this Court in Babu R. v. State of Kerala [2024 KHC 7141], it will be up to the 2nd respondent/Tahsildar to issue notice to the adversary parties, if any, and to take a decision in accord therewith on the petitioner's application for transfer of registry. To enable the same, Ext.P8 Order will stand set aside. There will be a direction as above to the 2nd respondent/Tahsildar concerned. The same shall be complied within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the Tahsildar concerned, for compliance.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sasidharan.N.I vs The Tahasildar (Lr) Kanayannur on 17 December, 2025

Petitioner filed Ext.P6 application for effecting transfer of registry based on an unregistered Will, which has not culminated in a legitimate action, is the grievance. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, going by the judgment in Babu R. v. State of Kerala [2024 KHC 7141], after issuing notice to the legal heirs, if they do not turn up, the Village Officer is at liberty to proceed with the matter, treating the case as uncontested.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next