Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (0.42 seconds)
Bindu Venugopal vs M/O Agriculture on 28 February, 2018 cites

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

43. At the cost of some repetition, we observe that the law on judicial intervention 41 OA No.426/2017 into matters of transfer is well settled through a catena of decisions by the Apex Court in, B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 SC 1955, Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532, Union of India v. S.L.Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444, Union of India Vs. N.P. Thomas, AIR 1993 SC 1605; Rajender Roy Vs. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1236; Ramadhar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 1993 Supp (3) SCC 35; N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India & ors., (1994) 6 SCC 98& AIR (1995) SC 423; Chief General Manager (Tel.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 292 - S Natarajan - Full Document

Bank Of India vs Jagjit Singh Mehta on 22 November, 1991

For this decision, the Court noted the previous decision taken in Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta [1992] 1 S.C.C.306 "... they cannot, as of right, claim to be relieved of the ordinary incidents of all-India service and avoid transfer to a different place on the ground that-the spouses thereby would-be posted at different places. ... No doubt the guidelines requires the two spouses to he posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not 31 OA No.426/2017 consider it feasible. The only thing required is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of other employees."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 185 - J S Verma - Full Document

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

26. On the aspect of the application of transfer guidelines, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the matter in the case of UOI v. S.L. Abbas (supra) and held (as in abstract): "An order of transfer is an incidence of Government service. Who should be transferred where is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. There is no doubt that, while ordering the transfer the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly, if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, the husband and the wife must be 30 OA No.426/2017 posted at the same place. The said guideline, however, does not confer upon the government employee a legally enforceable right. Executive instructions issued by the Government are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force. There is no dispute that the respondent is liable to transfer anywhere in India. It is not the case of the respondent that the order of his transfer was vitiated by mala fides on the part of the authority making the order, though the Tribunal says so, merely because certain guidelines issued by the Central Government were not followed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1804 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Kumari Parul Awasthi vs The Managing Director U.P. Jal Nigam & ... on 28 August, 2010

20. While the Hon'ble Court did not agree that the allegation of mala fide made by the appellant had to be specifically denied in the counter filed by the respondents, it held that the impugned transfer order passed in that case is unsupported by any reason to show that it was necessitated by exigency of service or public interest and hence termed the order as mala fide.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

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

In fact, 38% of the samples are handled by the Mumbai office while 4% of the samples are handled in CIRCOT, Guntur(2016-17) but with only 1.5% of the technical staff in CIRCOT. Plainly, the argument of the applicant on these aspects have no merit and her argument that Guntur unit does not need more staff is presumptuous in the face of these facts. The fact that only overall strength is sanctioned for CIRCOT and hitherto there was no intra- Institutional transfer mechanism only justifies the need and importance of the mechanism now established as the Transfer Committee. As the system emerges from the previous vacuum with all staff sitting in the headquarters, the introduction of this mechanism will doubtless cause hardship but as settled in Shilpi Bose (supra), individual interest must give way to public interest which is a perfectly valid reason for transfer unless other circumstances exist.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 1352 - Full Document

Director Of School Education Madras And ... vs O. Karuppa Thevan on 31 January, 1994

In Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta, the Supreme Court held that ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different without any detriment to the administrative needs.... In this connection the decision of the Apex Court in Director of School Education v. O.Karuppa Thevan, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 666 may be noted. In that case the transfer of an employee during mid academic term was considered by the Court and the Court found that there was no urgency for such transfer and in that view of the matter it restrained the employer from giving effect to the impugned transfer till the end of the academic year".
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 256 - P B Sawant - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next