Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Mumbai High Court Upholds C.I.S.F. Inter-Sector Transfer, Stresses on Administrative Prerogative"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent verdict, the Honorable Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy of the High Court of Judicature at Patna have upheld the inter-sector transfer of a Sub-Inspector Ministerial in the Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.). The judgment emphasizes the significance of administrative decisions in maintaining a homogeneous mix of personnel within the force.

 The appellant, Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, had challenged his transfer, citing compassionate grounds related to his wife's medical treatment and his son's education. However, the court, while acknowledging these concerns, underscored that administrative decisions such as transfers should be made considering broader factors.

 In its observation, the court noted, "Transfer is an incidence of service," and clarified that transfers can only be challenged if they are malafide, punitive, or outside the authority's power. In Mr. Gupta's case, none of these circumstances applied.

 The court referred to Section 15 of the C.I.S.F. Act and Circular No. 22 of 2022, which outline the guidelines for transfers within the force. It highlighted that maintaining a balance between home and out-of-home sector personnel is essential for the effective functioning of the C.I.S.F. and ensuring security in various locations across the country.

 The judgment also pointed out that administrative authorities had considered Mr. Gupta's case and found it did not warrant an exception to the administrative requirements of the force. The court, therefore, concluded that there was no compelling reason to interfere with the administrative decision to transfer him.

 This verdict reiterates the principle that administrative decisions, including transfers, should be respected, particularly in disciplined organizations like the C.I.S.F. It underlines the need to balance individual concerns with broader administrative and security considerations.

 Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta was represented by Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar, while the Respondents were represented by Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, ASG; Mr. Renuka Sharma, CGC; Mr. Prakritita Sharma, JC to ASG; and Mr. Sriram Krishna, JC to ASG during the legal proceedings.

 Date of Decision: 13-09-2023

Manoj Kumar Gupta vs The Union of India

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Manoj_Gupta_Vs_UOI_13Sep23_PatHC.pdf"]Mumbai High Court Upholds C.I.S.F. Inter-Sector Transfer, Stresses on Administrative Prerogative"

Latest Legal News