Airport Authority Of India vs Rajiv Ratan Pandey & Ors on 17 August, 2009
In Airports Authority of India Vs. Rajeev Ratan Pandey and Ors (JT 2009 (10) SC 472), it has been held thus:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.61 seconds)Param Hansh Mishra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 August, 2007
In Param Hansh Mishra Vs. Union of India and Ors (2008 (2) SLJ 93 (ibid)), Honble Delhi High Court ruled as under:-
Major General J.K. Bansal vs Union Of India And Others on 23 August, 2005
Gen. J.K.Bansal Vs. UOI ( 2005) 7 SCC 227 it has been held that the Court should not interfere with the order of transfer which is made for public interest and for administrative exigency.
Union Of India & Ors vs H.N. Kirtania on 12 July, 1989
A similar view was taken in an earlier decision in the case of UOI Vs. H.Kitanya ( 1989) 3 SCC 445. Since the applicant was relived from the CGI, Toronto, at the time of grant of stay order, the cost of keeping the applicant in an expensive city like Toronto without work is costing the exchequer Rs.7500 a day.
Union Of India And Ors vs S.L. Abbas on 27 April, 1993
5. Again in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas 1993 SCC 2444, the Apex Court held that the guidelines issued by the Government and the policies, if any, regarding transfer of employees from one place to the other do not create any enforceable legal right in favor of the employee to insist that he should be continued at a particular place for any particular period or time. Orders of transfer will not, therefore, be interfered with simply because the same are in violation of the policy or guidelines. The petitioners argument that his transfer from Delhi to Jaisalmer is in violation of the guidelines regarding postings in Air Force, therefore, needs notice only to be rejected.
Though, when there are certain guidelines regulating the transfer of an employee in a particular service or cadre and same are followed in respect of certain employees, any disregard to these in any particular case may not be countenanced, unless there is some reason or cause to do so, but in the present case, there is no such situation. The respondents have explained sufficient cause in their counter reply (ibid) for not retaining the applicant at CGI (Toronto).
R.K. Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors. on 16 July, 2010
In R.K.Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors (OA 749/2013 decided on 09.05.2013), this Tribunal circumscribed the scope of interference with the transfer. Para 19 to 21 of the order read as under:-
B. Varadha Rao vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. on 28 October, 1986
(b) not made in public interest but made for collateral purpose with oblique motive and in colourable exercise of power (B.Varadha Rao Vs State of Karnataka & Ors- vitiated by abuse of power)
(c ) passed for extraneous considerations without any
factual background or foundation.
Union Of India And Another vs N.P. Thomas on 22 September, 1992
it is discriminatory (UOI and Ors Vs. N.P.Thomas (AIR 1993 SC 1605)- transfer of a Government personnel holding transferable post cannot be held to be vitiated on the ground that some of his juniors are retained at the same station and his transfer is against the policy of the Government that husband and wife should be posted in the same station;
State Of U. P. & Ors vs Gobardhan Lal on 23 March, 2004
In the case of State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal(2004) 11 SCC 402, while dealing with a matter of transfer, this Court observed that allegations of mala-fides must inspire confidence of the Court and ought not to be entertained on the mere asking of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference would ordinarily be made with an order of transfer. That the burden of proving mala-fides is on a person leveling such allegations and the burden is heavy, admits of no legal ambiguity. Mere assertion or bald statement is not enough to discharge the heavy burden that the law imposes upon the person leveling allegations of mala-fides; it must be supported by requisite materials. In the present case, as noticed above, at the threshold, no allegations of mala-fides have been pleaded in the writ petition. It is only by way of a supplementary affidavit that allegations of mala-fides have been put forth by the Respondent No. 1 but even such allegations are not supported by any material whatsoever. In a matter such as the present one where plea of mala-fides is not made in the writ petition and the assertion of
mala-fides is made for the first time in a supplementary affidavit which too is not supported by any convincing and cogent material, the plea of mala-fides hardly deserved acceptance, prima facie, justifying stay of operation of a transfer order.
Shri Arvind Dattatraya Dhande vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 10 July, 1997
The High Court has referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Arvind Dattatraya Dhande v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 169 but in what we have said above, that decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In the writ petition, the transfer order has been assailed by the present Respondent No. 1 on the sole ground that it was violative of transfer policy framed by the appellant. The High Court, did not, even find any contravention of transfer policy in transferring the Respondent No. 1 from Lucknow to Calicut. In a matter of transfer of a government employee, scope of judicial review is limited and High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer. In the present case, High Court fell into a grave error in staying the transfer order which, if allowed to stand, may cause prejudice to the administrative functioning of the appellant.