Topic
Rajasthan High Court quashes a transfer order for failing to specify the exact place of posting, reaffirming Rule 173 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Rules, 1957. The ruling underscores procedural compliance in government transfers affecting land revenue officials.
Rajasthan High Court quashes a transfer order for lack of Block Development Officer consent under Section 89(8) and Rule 289, reaffirming mandatory procedural compliance for Panchayati Raj cadre postings. The ruling underscores the need for statutory consent before effecting transfers in the state's rural administration.
Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that contractual employees cannot be transferred if their appointment order explicitly prohibits it. The court quashed the transfer order of a Gram Rojgar Sahayak, reinforcing that administrative actions must align with the terms of employment contracts, impacting service law and contractual employment rights.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that a transfer order cannot be enforced against an employee on maternity leave, staying its operation until the leave period concludes. The court directed the authorities to consider any representation by the employee within 30 days, reinforcing protections under service law for pregnant workers.
MP High Court stays the transfer of a cancer-afflicted employee to a rural post 50 km away, ruling that health considerations must inform administrative decisions. The court directed the competent authority to decide the employee’s representation within 30 days, reinforcing natural justice in service law.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that employees engaged in Census 2027 duties cannot be transferred mid-task, as per GAD’s binding circular prioritizing national data collection. This sets a precedent for public servants involved in time-bound constitutional exercises, ensuring continuity of critical state functions over routine administrative convenience.
MP High Court quashed a transfer order issued days after a charge sheet, holding it malafide where the employee was nine months from retirement, required dialysis, and was moved 900 km away. The ruling reinforces that transfers lacking sanctioned posts and ignoring medical needs violate service norms and natural justice.
Delhi High Court rules that termination of a Medical Sales Representative for non-compliance with a transfer order without a prior disciplinary enquiry violates principles of natural justice. The judgment reaffirms that field-level sales staff qualify as 'workmen' under the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, entitling them to procedural fairness before dismissal.
Delhi High Court rules that transfers based on administrative exigency cannot be challenged merely for deviating from internal tenure norms, even if preceded by an NHRC complaint. The judgment clarifies that internal guidelines are directory, not mandatory, and do not confer enforceable rights on employees.
Bombay HC rules that a transfer order issued during financial distress without proper service amounts to illegal termination. The court reinstated the employee with 50% back wages from November 2015, emphasizing that transfers cannot be used as a subterfuge for termination under labour law.