Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Union Of India VS H. N. Kirtania...
Union Of India VS H. N. Kirtania - 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 345 : The judgment addresses the transfer of a Central Government employee (Public Relations Officer in the Central Passport Organisation) during a period when the employee had filed a writ petition challenging the transfer. The court held that a government employee holding a transferable post has no legal right to insist on posting at a particular location, and transfers made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds such as violation of statutory rules or mala fides. The court emphasized that the High Court erred in issuing an injunction against the transfer and in directing payment of arrears of salary, as there was no valid justification for interfering with the transfer order. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. This establishes that transfers during a ''''ban period'''' (interpreted here as a period when a writ petition is pending) are permissible and generally not subject to judicial intervention unless unlawful grounds exist.Checking relevance for Rajendra Singh VS State of U. P. ...
Rajendra Singh VS State of U. P. - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1345 : A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place and is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies. Transfer is an inherent incident of service and does not violate any legal rights of the employee. Courts are reluctant to interfere with transfer orders unless they are vitiated by violation of statutory provisions or mala fides. The transfer of a government employee during a ban period (if such a period exists under applicable rules) would be subject to the same principles, and judicial review would be limited to whether the transfer was made in violation of rules or with mala fides. The courts should not interfere with day-to-day administrative transfers, as such interference would disrupt public administration.Checking relevance for State Of U. P. VS Siya Ram...
Checking relevance for State Of M. P. VS S. S. Kourav...
State Of M. P. VS S. S. Kourav - 1995 0 Supreme(SC) 114 : The judgment addresses the transfer of a government employee during a ban period. It clarifies that while a ban on transfers may be in place during President''''s Rule, the transfer is not automatically invalid if the Governor''''s prior approval is obtained through delegated authority. In this case, the transfer was approved by the Advisor to the Governor, who had been delegated the power to approve such transfers under the business rules. The court held that the transfer order was valid and legal because the Administrator (acting on behalf of the Governor) had given approval, and the delegation of powers under the business rules made it unnecessary for the Governor to personally sign the order. Therefore, a transfer during a ban period is valid if approved by an authorized officer acting under delegated authority, even if the Governor does not personally sign the order.Checking relevance for Nagorao Shivaji Chavan VS Sunil Purushottam Bhamre...
Nagorao Shivaji Chavan VS Sunil Purushottam Bhamre - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 1347 : The Supreme Court held that transfers of government employees during a ban period (i.e., before completion of the normal tenure of three years) are permissible under the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005, in cases of exceptional circumstances or administrative exigencies. The Court specifically upheld the transfer of a government servant (Respondent No. 1) from Civil Surgeon, Jalgaon to Assistant Director, AIDS Control Society, Wadala, Mumbai, despite the ban period, due to substantiated allegations of financial irregularities and insubordination. The judgment establishes that while the normal tenure is three years, Section 4 of the Act allows for departure from this rule when the competent authority records reasons in writing and obtains prior approval from the next higher authority, particularly in cases involving administrative exigencies.Checking relevance for Farooq Maniyar S/o Sh. Nijamuddin Maniyar VS State Of Rajasthan...
Farooq Maniyar S/o Sh. Nijamuddin Maniyar VS State Of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1597 : During a ban period imposed by the State Government, a transfer or ''''awaiting posting order'''' (APO) can only be issued if it is of urgent nature and after obtaining prior permission from the office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. The court held that the issuance of an APO during a ban period without demonstrating urgency or securing such permission constitutes a violation of the ban order and is therefore unsustainable. The court emphasized that APOs must not be used as a substitute for transfer orders, nor as a tool to bypass transfer rules or for administrative convenience, and must comply strictly with the guidelines under Rule 25A of the Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951, and the Government of Rajasthan''''s decision thereunder.
