Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.47 seconds)
Manoranjan Debbarma vs M/O Defence on 19 December, 2025 cites

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

The conclusion we have reached in the present case is for the reasons given by us and not those which impelled the Tribunal to reject the appellant's claim. iii. Judgment and order dated 26.08.1986 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 7904 of 1986 in the case of B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. wherein it says that - "It cannot be forgotten that so far as superior or more responsible posts are concerned, continued posting at one station or in one department of the Government is not conductive to good administration. It creates vested interest and therefore we find that even from the British times the general policy has been to restrict the period of posting for a definite period. We wish to add that the position of Class III and Class IV employees stand on a different footing. We trust that the Government will keep these considerations in view while making an order of transfer."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 292 - S Natarajan - Full Document

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

In the light of the ratio of the Judgement passed in the case of Union of India vs S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357 (supra), the authorities are not obliged to justify the transfer by adducing the reasons thereof and that the executive instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force. Then, the guidelines give the applicants opportunity for consideration by the authorities, which in the instant case the respondent authorities have done and the PACB has reviewed and decided on each representation individually including that of the applicant."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1804 - B P Reddy - Full Document

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

9. The applicant has challenged the impugned transfer order primarily on the ground that he has been transferred on three occasions within a span of seven months and that such transfers are arbitrary, punitive, and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 732. It is further contended that the impugned action is vitiated by malafides and extraneous considerations, allegedly to accommodate other officers, and that the applicant's representation dated 06.03.2025 was disposed of without proper application of mind by order dated 23.04.2025. He has also alleged that respondents have placed wrong facts before the Court that posting order dated 22.07.2024 was amended on the request of the applicant vide PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 22 order dated 04.09.2024 and asked for production of record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 150 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Duken Kato vs The State Of Arunachal Pradesha And 6 Ors on 22 September, 2023

In the case of Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh (supra), it was held that though such policy and guidelines do not create any enforceable right, however, the employees shall have legitimate expectation for proper implementation of such policy and that though such legitimate expectation is not by itself is a distinct and enforceable right however, failure to consider and to give due weightage to it may render the decision to be arbitrary. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the given facts of the present ca the above decision squarely covers the controversy at hand inasmuch as the appellant was transfer and posted after giving due weightage to his request including his date of superannuation, however, while transferring back, as reflected in the record no considerations, under the transfer policy PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 9 was made nor any exigencies of services are discernible for such exercise of power and therefore, such exercise of power is nothing but an arbitrary exercise of power.
Gauhati High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Mehta - Full Document

Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (Coal ... vs State Of .Uttar Pradesh And Another on 21 July, 1976

"21. The learned Counsel for the applicant also brought to our notice the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Salek Chand v. State of U.P. and Others. 1999(8) SLR 793. The Allahabad High Court cancelled the order of transfer which has been influenced by the local Member of Parliament. We find that there is no application of mind and the transfer order was made only to see that the applicant is shifted from that place and substituted by a person of their choice. We find that the impugned transfer order is bad and we quash the same. In view of that the applicant is entitled to continue at Pondicherry as per the order dated 15.11.2000. The official respondent is directed to re-post the applicant forthwith to his original place of posting by relieving the third respondent also forthwith."
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 70 - A C Gupta - Full Document

Manager Govt. Branch Press &. Anr vs D. B. Belliawpa on 30 November, 1978

When an order of termination was challenged on mala fides, it was pointed out by the Supreme Court in Manager, Government Branch Press v. D.B. Belliappa "Where a charge of unfair discrimination is levelled with specificity or motives are imputed to the authority making the impugned order of termination of service, it is the duty of the authority to dispel that charge by disclosing to the court the reason or motive which impelled it to take the impugned action." viii.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 299 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document
1   2 Next