Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.39 seconds)
Dr. Bithika Choudhury vs State Of Tripura on 20 October, 2020 cites

Union Of India And Ors vs S.L. Abbas on 27 April, 1993

[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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1804 - B P Reddy - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Others vs Joginder Singh Dhatt on 12 July, 1993

[18] In the case of State of Punjab vs. Joginder Singh Dhatt (Supra) plea of the appellant was that his was a mid term transfer and apart from the fact that his date of superannuation was nearby. High Court interfered with the transfer order and allowed the petition. When the matter came up in appeal before the Apex Court, while setting aside the order of the High Court, the Apex Court observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 90 - Full Document

Mrs. Shilpi Bose And Others vs State Of Bihar And Others on 19 November, 1990

In the case WA No. 198 of 2020 Page 12 of 17 of Shilpi Bose (Supra), the Apex Court held that even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts should not ordinarily interfere with such order unless violation of any mandatory statutory rule or malafide is brought forth before the court. The Apex Court vide paragraph 4 of the judgment has held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 1352 - Full Document

Dr. Nagorao Shivaji Chavan vs Dr. Sunil Purushottam Bhamre on 15 November, 2018

[19] In a later decision in Dr. Nagorao Shivaji Chavan Vs. Dr. Sunil Purushottam Bhamre & Ors. reported in AIR 2019 SC 189 the Apex Court having relied on its earlier decision in B. WA No. 198 of 2020 Page 15 of 17 Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors, [(1986) 4 SCC 131] held that continued posting at one station or in one department in superior or responsible posts is not conducive to good administration.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 7 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

B. Varadha Rao vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 26 August, 1986

[19] In a later decision in Dr. Nagorao Shivaji Chavan Vs. Dr. Sunil Purushottam Bhamre & Ors. reported in AIR 2019 SC 189 the Apex Court having relied on its earlier decision in B. WA No. 198 of 2020 Page 15 of 17 Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors, [(1986) 4 SCC 131] held that continued posting at one station or in one department in superior or responsible posts is not conducive to good administration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 141 - Full Document

Sri Tapan Majumder Alias Pura Tapan vs The State Of Tripura on 25 January, 2019

[23] We have noted that learned counsel of the appellant has relied on the decisions of this High Court in the cases of Braja Gopal Nath (Supra) and Saral Mohan Tripura (Supra) and also the decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Tapan Majumder (Supra) in support of his contention. In all these cases, the transfer orders of the petitioners were quashed and the State respondents were directed to act in accordance with the memorandum dated 28.02.1994 on the ground that there was no reflection in the related file of the administrative department that while approval of the departmental minister WA No. 198 of 2020 Page 17 of 17 was obtained for transfer of the petitioners, the minister was apprised of the protection available to the petitioners who were office bearers of employees' association.
Tripura High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - S Karol - Full Document

Sri Braja Gopal Acharjee vs The State Of Tripura on 20 August, 2018

[23] We have noted that learned counsel of the appellant has relied on the decisions of this High Court in the cases of Braja Gopal Nath (Supra) and Saral Mohan Tripura (Supra) and also the decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Tapan Majumder (Supra) in support of his contention. In all these cases, the transfer orders of the petitioners were quashed and the State respondents were directed to act in accordance with the memorandum dated 28.02.1994 on the ground that there was no reflection in the related file of the administrative department that while approval of the departmental minister WA No. 198 of 2020 Page 17 of 17 was obtained for transfer of the petitioners, the minister was apprised of the protection available to the petitioners who were office bearers of employees' association.
Tripura High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - A Rastogi - Full Document
1