Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)
T C Sundaram vs Southern Railway on 22 May, 2026 cites

State Bank Of India vs Anjan Sanyal & Ors on 12 April, 2001

16. It is also submitted that the applicants working in a transferable post do not have any vested right to work at a particular place, they have no legal right to continue in Ernakulam and this Tribunal cannot interfere with the order of transfer made in public interest on administrative exigency. They have Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 11 also placed reliance on the decisions in State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal [2001 KHC 1195], Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1991 SC 532], State of U. P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal [(2004) 11 SCC 402, N.K.Singh v. Union of India and others [(1994) 6 SCC 98], S.C.Saxena v. Union of India and others [(2006) 9 SCC 583]. The contention that it is a short cut for imposing penalty is denied.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 527 - Full Document

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

16. It is also submitted that the applicants working in a transferable post do not have any vested right to work at a particular place, they have no legal right to continue in Ernakulam and this Tribunal cannot interfere with the order of transfer made in public interest on administrative exigency. They have Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 11 also placed reliance on the decisions in State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal [2001 KHC 1195], Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1991 SC 532], State of U. P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal [(2004) 11 SCC 402, N.K.Singh v. Union of India and others [(1994) 6 SCC 98], S.C.Saxena v. Union of India and others [(2006) 9 SCC 583]. The contention that it is a short cut for imposing penalty is denied.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 1319 - D Raju - Full Document

All India Sc And St Railway Employee'S ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 March, 2006

16. It is also submitted that the applicants working in a transferable post do not have any vested right to work at a particular place, they have no legal right to continue in Ernakulam and this Tribunal cannot interfere with the order of transfer made in public interest on administrative exigency. They have Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 11 also placed reliance on the decisions in State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal [2001 KHC 1195], Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1991 SC 532], State of U. P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal [(2004) 11 SCC 402, N.K.Singh v. Union of India and others [(1994) 6 SCC 98], S.C.Saxena v. Union of India and others [(2006) 9 SCC 583]. The contention that it is a short cut for imposing penalty is denied.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 82 - Full Document

Somesh Tiwari vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 December, 2008

24. While reiterating the contentions in the O.A. and the rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicants relied on the decisions reported in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others [(2009) 2 SCC 592], Gopinathan M and another v. State of Kerala and others [2014 (4) KLT 285], a decision of this Tribunal in O.A.51/2023 dated 01/08/2023, which was rendered basing on Somesh Tiwari etc. and also the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) 37736/2025 dated 16.10.2025. According to him, apart from the common contentions raised, the documents produced by the applicant in O.A.346/2024 touching the immunity granted to the guardian of a child suffering from disability like Annexures-A3 to A7 and A14 cannot be disregarded by the Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 14 Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 563 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1