Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.26 seconds)Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Balmer Lawrie Workers' Union, Bombay ... vs Balmer Lawrie And Co. Ltd. And Ors on 21 December, 1984
17. The impugned order does not prevent the petitioner from
continuing to be a member or office bearer of the association. His rights in
that behalf remain even after the impugned order precisely what he was before.
When his services are required in other stations the transfer is inevitable,
he cannot complain of infringement of his constitutional right. Forming an
association is entirely different from non-conferring certain rights and
privileges on par with other trade unions. Applying the ratio laid down by
the Apex Court in the decision reported in (Balmer Lawrie Workers' Union,
Bombay and another V. Balmer Lawrie & Co Ltd and others) AIR 1985 SC 311
non-conferring such rights and privileges does not put in the petitioner
association in an inferior position nor the charge of discrimination can be
entertained. Hence, the argument advanced by Mr. Dhanapalan, learned counsel
for the petitioner that refusal to grant certain privileges is contravention
of Article 19 (1) (C) of the Constitution is unsustainable.
Director Of School Education Madras And ... vs O. Karuppa Thevan on 31 January, 1994
ii) (Director of School Education, Madras and others Vs. O.
Karuppa Thevan and another) 1994 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 666 wherein in
para-2 it was held thus:-
Laxmi Narain Mehar vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 February, 1997
In the decision reported in (Lakshmi Narayan Mehar Vs. Union of India
and others) AIR 1997 SC 1347 the Honourable Supreme Court observed that the
employee was posted near home town on compassionate grounds and later
transferred on ground that service of experienced officers were necessary.
The said order was passed due to administrative exigency and the Honourable
Supreme Court refused to interfere with the said transfer.
E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973
In the decision reported in (E.P. Rayappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu)
AIR 1974 SC 555 the Honourable Supreme Court held that the allegations of
malafides are often made more easily than proved. The very seriousness of
such allegation demands proof of high order of credibility.
M. Sankaranarayanan Ias vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 11 November, 1992
In (M. Sankaranarayanan, I.A.S., Vs. State of Karnataka and others)
AIR 1993 SC 763, the Honourable Supreme Court observed that transfer of Chief
Secretary, due to difference of opinion occurring between the Chief Secretary
and the Chief Minister alleged. Such act does not warrant a finding that due
to displeasure of Chief Minister, transfer is effected, but not on
administrative exigency, but to malign the Chief Secretary. The position in
this regard was also followed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision
AIR 1974 SC 555 cited supra.
B. Varadha Rao vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. on 28 October, 1986
In the decision (B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and others)
AIR 1974 SC 555, the Honourable Supreme Court held that when order of transfer
not resulting in alteration of service condition to the disadvantage of the
employee, such order does not even appellable.
Union Of India And Ors vs S.L. Abbas on 27 April, 1993
In (Union of India and others Vs. S.L. Abbas) AIR 1993 SC 2444 the
Honourable Supreme Court held that transfer of an employee made without
following guidelines cannot be interfered with by the Court unless, it is
vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of the statutory provisions.
While ordering transfer of Government employee, there is no doubt, the
authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the
subject, but the said guidelines do not confer upon the Government employee a
legally enforceable right.
P. Balakotaiah vs The Union Of India And Others(And ... on 3 December, 1957
In the decision reported in (P. Balakotaiah v. Union of India) AIR
1958 Supreme Court 232, in Para 17, it was held thus:-