M/S.Dipika Oil Centre vs State Of Jharkhand . on 25 July, 2014
At Para-9 of the judgment in Dipika vs. State (supra),
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court have held as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)Union Of India And Ors vs S.L. Abbas on 27 April, 1993
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments have
held that transfer of an employee is a purely administrative
decision and the Courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere
unless the decisions are tainted by arbitrariness, illegality or
bias.[Union of India vs. S.L.Abas reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey
(2004) 12 SCC 299, Abani Kanta Ray vs. State of Orissa 1995
Suppl (4) SCC 169, Rajendra Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178, Shilpi Bose & Ors. vs. State of
Bihar & Ors. in AIR 1991 SC 532 and N.K. Singh vs. Union of
India & Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 1998]. However, the physically
challenged employees are of a special category and needless to
say the best performance from them can be extracted if they are
8
O.A.No.186 of 2018
posted at a place which is nearest to their native places and
where they have the confidence of medical care and related
facilities. A perusal of the rule position and the laid down law
makes it clear that persons with disabilities have to be dealt
with in a separate and distinct way commensurate with their
physical limitations as well as their capacity to perform in the
best optimal manner. Public interest cannot be a valid ground
for transferring a physically challenged employee unless he has
committed acts which are against public interest. In the
present case, the facts and the points of law, particularly
guidelines issued in the Office Memoranda dated 10.05.2910
and 31.03.2014 come to the rescue of the applicant and we find
enough justification to come to the conclusion that the transfer
of the applicant at this belated stage in his service career is not
in the interest either of the organization or the individual.
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs Damodar Prasad Pandey And Ors on 20 September, 2004
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments have
held that transfer of an employee is a purely administrative
decision and the Courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere
unless the decisions are tainted by arbitrariness, illegality or
bias.[Union of India vs. S.L.Abas reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey
(2004) 12 SCC 299, Abani Kanta Ray vs. State of Orissa 1995
Suppl (4) SCC 169, Rajendra Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178, Shilpi Bose & Ors. vs. State of
Bihar & Ors. in AIR 1991 SC 532 and N.K. Singh vs. Union of
India & Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 1998]. However, the physically
challenged employees are of a special category and needless to
say the best performance from them can be extracted if they are
8
O.A.No.186 of 2018
posted at a place which is nearest to their native places and
where they have the confidence of medical care and related
facilities. A perusal of the rule position and the laid down law
makes it clear that persons with disabilities have to be dealt
with in a separate and distinct way commensurate with their
physical limitations as well as their capacity to perform in the
best optimal manner. Public interest cannot be a valid ground
for transferring a physically challenged employee unless he has
committed acts which are against public interest. In the
present case, the facts and the points of law, particularly
guidelines issued in the Office Memoranda dated 10.05.2910
and 31.03.2014 come to the rescue of the applicant and we find
enough justification to come to the conclusion that the transfer
of the applicant at this belated stage in his service career is not
in the interest either of the organization or the individual.
Sri Abani Kanta Ray vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 13 October, 1995
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments have
held that transfer of an employee is a purely administrative
decision and the Courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere
unless the decisions are tainted by arbitrariness, illegality or
bias.[Union of India vs. S.L.Abas reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey
(2004) 12 SCC 299, Abani Kanta Ray vs. State of Orissa 1995
Suppl (4) SCC 169, Rajendra Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178, Shilpi Bose & Ors. vs. State of
Bihar & Ors. in AIR 1991 SC 532 and N.K. Singh vs. Union of
India & Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 1998]. However, the physically
challenged employees are of a special category and needless to
say the best performance from them can be extracted if they are
8
O.A.No.186 of 2018
posted at a place which is nearest to their native places and
where they have the confidence of medical care and related
facilities. A perusal of the rule position and the laid down law
makes it clear that persons with disabilities have to be dealt
with in a separate and distinct way commensurate with their
physical limitations as well as their capacity to perform in the
best optimal manner. Public interest cannot be a valid ground
for transferring a physically challenged employee unless he has
committed acts which are against public interest. In the
present case, the facts and the points of law, particularly
guidelines issued in the Office Memoranda dated 10.05.2910
and 31.03.2014 come to the rescue of the applicant and we find
enough justification to come to the conclusion that the transfer
of the applicant at this belated stage in his service career is not
in the interest either of the organization or the individual.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
K.K. Ambujakshy vs Under Secretary (Pva) on 19 October, 2010
7. The applicant has also relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in SCA/10232 & 10234 of 1996
(Dipika vs. State) decided on 6.09.2011 as well as two orders of
Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal (O.A.No.560 of 2010 decided
on 19.10.2010 (K.K.Ambujakshy vs. Under Secretary (Pva) and
A.N.Mohanan vs. 2 Regional Passport Officer (O.A.No.358/2010
decided on 10.11.2010) wherein the cases of the persons with
disability have been considered and reliefs granted to the
applicants.
A. N. Mohanan vs Joint Secretary(Pva) & Chief Passport ... on 10 November, 2010
Similarly in K.K.Ambujakshy vs. Under
Secretary(PVA) Ministry of External Affairs (CPV Division) in
O.A.No.560/2010 as well as in A.N.Mohanan vs. Joint Secretary
(PVA) & Chief Passport Officer, in O.A.No.358/10, the
Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal had considered the
application of the physically handicapped Government
employees and had granted relief to the applicants by way of
cancellation of transfer orders.
1