cites: 20553761

State Of U. P. & Ors vs Gobardhan Lal on 23 March, 2004

(x) State of U.P. vs. Siya Ram, (2004) 7 SCC 405; (xi) State of U.P. and others vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004)11 SCC 402; (xii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey and others. (2004) 12 SCC 299;

Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 1319 - D Raju - Full Document

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

(iv) Union of India and others vs. S.L.Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357;

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

B. Varadha Rao vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. on 28 October, 1986

20. Considering the above ratio of judgements, in the instant case also, the applicant has yet to join at the transferred place and her only argument is that she was protected by Rule 6 of the Transfer Guidelines being a husband-wife case. Although, she is in her present place of posting for more than a decade and that her son is not well and having epilepsy. I do not find any report of any doctor which shows that such epilepsy needs the presence of the boy only in the present place of posting and it cannot be treated at Belgam district where Chikodi is located and from Chikodi at just one and half hours' distance, the best of more than one medical colleges are available at Belgam and two medical colleges at one hour distance at Kolhapur adjoining Maharashtra. The applicant has attached to the OA many routine medical papers of her son, but in the absence of an opinion based certificate of essentiality, such paper do not make out a case in favour of the applicant. The contention of the applicant regarding the ratio of judgements are mostly of coordinate Benches of Central Administrative Tribunal and few orders from the Hon'ble High Court which do not stand in front of the large number of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgements relied on by the respondents i.e. (i) B.Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka, (1986) 4 SCC 132;

Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 292 - S Natarajan - Full Document