Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)
Vijay Sharma vs Rail Bhawan on 12 December, 2025 cites

T.S.R.Subramanian & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 October, 2013

Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that a transfer at this stage will badly affect the applicant's family. His son is in Class 12 and preparing for NEET-UG 2026, and his father is suffering from liver cancer and undergoing treatment at Kanpur. These humanitarian considerations were not taken into account. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the settled guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.S.R. Subramanian & Others v. Union of India & Others, AIR 2014 SC 263, have not been adhered to in the present case. It is argued that no duly constituted committee was formed to examine the applicant's transfer, nor there is any recommendation of the competent committee on record. Consequently, the impugned order suffers from violation of the prescribed statutory procedure. It is further contended that the applicant's transfer has been effected without considering the spouse posting ground and the educational needs of his children, thereby also amounting to violation of the applicable statutory provisions and transfer guidelines. It is lastly argued that issuing the relieving order through WhatsApp, publishing notices in the newspaper, and creating MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 5 pressure upon the applicant to vacate his quarter reflect undue haste and malafide intention. Therefore, the impugned transfer order is illegal, punitive, and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following case laws:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 150 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Dheeraj Kumar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 May, 2020

11. The third ground raised is the applicant's ailing father, who is undergoing treatment for liver cancer at Kanpur. Medical hardship is a valid humanitarian consideration. CAT in Dheeraj Kumar (supra) and Dr. Fakhra Alam (supra) considered such hardships while granting relief. However, in both these cases, the transfer orders were either routine or unsupported by any administrative urgency. In the present case, the transfer is specifically connected to an ongoing vigilance inquiry and is supported by Para 6.3.1 of Master Circular No. 64.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document

Shanti Kumari vs Regional Deputy Director, Health ... on 8 January, 1981

23. The judicial precedents relied upon by the applicant mainly pertain to cases where transfer was found to be punitive, mechanical, arbitrary, or unsupported by rules. However, the present case stands on a different footing where the transfer is explicitly supported by policy and vigilance requirements. The case laws cited by the respondents, especially Janardhan Debanath (supra), Shanti Kumari (supra), and Rakesh Kumar (supra), are more appropriately applicable to the present facts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 50 - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs Sri Janardhan Debanath And Anr on 13 February, 2004

14. The next issue that arises is whether the impugned transfer is punitive or malafide. The transfer order does not contain any stigma or punitive language. It simply records an administrative posting. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Janardhan Debanath (supra), a transfer during vigilance inquiry is not punitive unless the order itself reflects punishment, which is not the case here.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 492 - A Pasayat - Full Document

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

19. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on Para 227 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume-I, which provides that a competent authority may transfer a railway servant from one post to another, except (i) on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour, or (ii) on his written request. However, when Para 227 is examined in the light of the facts of the present case, it is evident that the impugned transfer has been ordered purely on administrative exigencies arising out of an ongoing vigilance and disciplinary proceeding. Such a transfer, being grounded in administrative necessity, cannot be invalidated by invoking Para 227 of the IREC. The applicant also cannot derive any assistance from the judgment relied upon by him - Director of School Education, Madras & Others vs. O. Karuppa Thevan & Another, 1994 SCC (L&S) 1180 as the principles laid down therein have no application to the present factual scenario.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 256 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar Assistant Director vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary & ... on 13 October, 2020

23. The judicial precedents relied upon by the applicant mainly pertain to cases where transfer was found to be punitive, mechanical, arbitrary, or unsupported by rules. However, the present case stands on a different footing where the transfer is explicitly supported by policy and vigilance requirements. The case laws cited by the respondents, especially Janardhan Debanath (supra), Shanti Kumari (supra), and Rakesh Kumar (supra), are more appropriately applicable to the present facts.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next