Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 435 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. ... vs Shri Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee And ... on 18 January, 1995

Dr.P.Sayed Koya vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 6 November, 2008

(3) SCC 649 and Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle Vs. Rajendra Ch. Battacharjee JT 1995 (1) SC 440. The Tribunal rightly held that Special (Duty) Allowance is granted to the employees posted in certain regions because they are exposed to geographical, linguistic, cultural and social hardships. The Tribunal was also right in holding that persons belonging to Union Territory of Lakshadweep when posted in Lakshadweep itself, are not put to the same stress, strain and physical hardship that an outsider would experience when he is posted to Lakshadweep. The petitioner, a native of Androth Island has been promoted to the post of Crane Operator and posted at Kalpeni. The contention of the petitioner that the classification is discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 has no legal basis. Ext. P13 relied on by the petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand as that is made applicable to the employees of the Home Department and grant of that allowance stands on a different footing.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gadadhar Bania And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2005

"A careful perusal of the opening part of the Office Memorandum reproduced above would show that the Government had appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms to review the existing allowances and facilities admissible to the various categories of Civilian Central Government employees serving in the North-Eastern Region so that Competent Officers may be attracted and retained in the North-Eastern Region States. The use of words "attracting and retaining in service" are very much significant which only suggest that it means the Competent Officers belonging to a region other than the North-Eastern Region. The question of attracting and retaining the services of Competent Officers who belong to North-Eastern Region itself would not arise. The intention of the Government and spirit behind the office memorandum is to provide an incentive and attraction to the Competent Officers belonging to a region other than the North-Eastern Region to come and serve in the North-Eastern Region. It can hardly be disputed that the geographical, climatic, living and food conditions of people living in North-Eastern Region and the States comprising therein are different from other regions of the country. The North-Eastern Region is considered to be "hard zone" for various reasons and it appears that it is for these reasons that the Government provided certain extra allowances, benefits and other facilities to attract Competent Officers in the North-Eastern Region at least for two to three years of tenure posting. The Ministry's Office Memorandum in question came up for consideration before this Court in Chief General Manager (Telecom) v. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee which was decided by us by judgment dated 18.1.1995 in which this Court took the view that the said office memoranda are meant for attracting and retaining the services of Competent Officers in the North-Eastern Region, from other parts of the country and not the persons belonging to that region where they were appointed and posted.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

P. Rajendran vs Deputy Insepctor General Of Police on 18 November, 2010

In Chief General Manager, (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle v. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee, cited supra, the Supreme Court has held that, " The transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and compelling grounds rendering the transfer order improper and unjustifiable. In the present case we find no such grounds. On the contrary, as discussed above, the respondent remained at Agartala for most of the period. In the facts and circumstances stated above the claim of Respondent 1 for choice posting cannot be accepted and for that reason the impugned order of the Tribunal could not be sustained. In the result the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed."
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

Shailendra Kumar Jaiswal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 June, 2002

"The use of words "attracting and retaining in service" are very much significant which only suggest that it means the competent officers belonging to a region other than the North-Eastern Region. The question of attracting and retaining the services of competent officers who belong to the North-Eastern Region itself would not arise. The intention of the Government and spirit behind the office memorandum is to provide an incentive and attraction to the competent officers belonging to a region other than the North-Eastern Region to come and serve in the North-Eastern-Region. It can hardly be disputed that the geographical, climatic, living food conditions of people living in North-Eastern Region and the State Comprising therein are different from other regions of the counter. The North-Eastern Region is considered to be "hard Zone" for various reason and it appears that it is for these reasons that the Government provided certain extra allowance, benefits and other facilities to attract competent officers in the North-Eastern Region at least for two to three years of tenure posting. The Ministry's Office Memorandum in question came up for consideration before this Court in Chief General Manager (Telecom) v. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee which was decided by us by judgment dated 18.1.1995 in which this Court took the view that the said office memoranda are meant for attracting and retaining the services of competent officers in the North-Eastern Region, from other parts of the country and not the persons belonging to that region where they were appointed and posted.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

The Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... vs M.Muthulakshmi on 22 March, 2017

N.E. Telecom Circle v. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee, ; State of U.P. v. Dr. R.N. Prasad, 1995 (Supp) 2 SCC http://www.judis.nic.in 111 151; Union of India and Ors. v. Ganesh Dass Singh, ; Abani Kante Ray v. State of Orissa, 1995 (Supp) 4 SCC 169; Laxmi Narain Mehar v. Union of India, ; State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Saxena, ; National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, ; Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and Ors., ; State of U.P. v. Siya Ram, ; and Union of India v. Janardhan Debanath.)
Madras High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 3 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Anurag Gupta vs The Election Commission Of India on 3 May, 2019

37. Transfer is an incident of service and is also an eventuality of 20 service. An employee cannot, as a matter of right, seek transfer to a place of his choice as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle & Another versus Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee & Others reported in (1995) 2 SCC 532. A public servant, who holds a transferable post, has no vested right to remain at a place. As a deputed employee, this petitioner does not have any right to remain to be posted at a particular place of his choice. It is the prerogative of the employer to place an employee at a place of employer's choice.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - A Sen - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next