Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.52 seconds)The State Of Telangana vs B. Subba Rayudu on 14 September, 2022
7. Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr.
Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
22
provisions create a universal right or strict obligation in such cases
is denied, as judicial authority, including the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Telangana v. B. Subba Rayudu (2022), has
emphasized that such considerations are relevant but subordinate
to administrative exigencies and service needs, which always take
precedence in deputation and posting decisions.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And ... vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004
7. Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr.
Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
46
in mind, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani, that a
decision is an authority for what it actually decides and not for
what may logically follow from it. Even a slight difference in
factual context may materially alter the applicability of a
precedent. In the present case, the factual matrix involving
internal deputation functioning as a substitute for transfer
distinguishes it from the cases relied upon by the Respondents,
and therefore, those precedents cannot be applied in a mechanical
manner.
Bank Of India vs Jagjit Singh Mehta on 22 November, 1991
7. Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr.
Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
32
others, reported in AIR 2022 SC 1494, which outlined basic
precepts of service jurisprudence. Transfers in All India Services
are subject to administrative exigencies, and the desirability of
posting spouses together cannot override service requirements or
the claims of other employees. The Supreme Court had clarified in
Bank of India versus Jagjit Singh Mehta that while it is
ordinarily desirable to post husband and wife at the same station,
this does not create an automatic entitlement. Employees must
consider career prospects alongside family life, and if
administrative requirements do not permit co-posting, the hardship
is an accepted incident of service.
Union Of India vs State Of Bihar Reported In Air 1991 Sc ... on 19 May, 2014
Further, in Union of India
versus SL Abbas, the Court held that transfer is an incident of
service and judicial interference is limited unless the transfer is
shown to be malafide or in violation of statutory provisions. The
High Court in Adwin Vinifred Tirkey concluded that transfer
powers rest with the employer, the inconvenience caused to
employees and their families is not sufficient ground for
interference, and the Tribunal's order passed in accordance with
departmental instructions did not exhibit any illegality or
infirmity. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and any
pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
1
LALIT
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.198/2017
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj,
Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi,
Aged about 47 years,
R/o 158/16, Railway Colony,
Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
Bhavnagar University vs Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 3 December, 2002
7. Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr.
Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
46
in mind, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani, that a
decision is an authority for what it actually decides and not for
what may logically follow from it. Even a slight difference in
factual context may materially alter the applicability of a
precedent. In the present case, the factual matrix involving
internal deputation functioning as a substitute for transfer
distinguishes it from the cases relied upon by the Respondents,
and therefore, those precedents cannot be applied in a mechanical
manner.
State Of Punjab And Ors. vs Inder Singh And Ors. on 3 October, 1997
"18. The concept of "deputation" is well understood in
service law and has a different connotation in service law
and the dictionary meaning of the word "deputation" is of
no help. In simple words "deputation" means service
outside the cadre or outside the parent department.
Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post
outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a
temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the
employee has to come back to his parent department to
occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has
earned promotion in his parent department as per the
Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the
normal field of deployment or not is decided by the
authority who controls the service or post from which the
employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without
the consent of the person so deputed and he would,
therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation
post. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled
as I've also seen in various judgments which we have
referred to above. There is no escape for the respondents
now to go back to their parent departments and work there
as Constables or Head Constables, as the case may be."
Umapati Choudhary vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 14 May, 1999
17. Counsel for the Respondents submits that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held in Umapati Choudhary vs. State of
Bihar, 1999 (4) SCC 659, that:
Birju Bhati vs Comptroller & Auditor General on 19 May, 2022
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
The issue in all these Original Applications is the same and
hence with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all
the captioned OAs have been heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order. However, for writing the
present order, the facts are being taken from OA No. 1263/2025
(Vishal Bhati & Ors. v. CAG)) treating the same as the lead case.
1