Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

LAXMI NARAIN MEHAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Decided
24 February 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 463 · 1997 INSC 193
Also cited as
  • AIR 1997 SC 1347 (2 citing judgments)
  • (1997) 3 SCC 87 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

The petitioner was transferred from Kola to Mumbai on the administrative ground as indicated in the order .. The petitioner approached Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur by its order dated November 28, 1996 has dismissed the same. Thus ~this special leave petition. ·

p. 463, margin F

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the pcti~ioner was transferred on compassionate grounds and the transfer is not valid in law. Though he might have been transferred on compassionate grounds, in view of the express indication in the order giving reasons for the transfer, i.e., need of experienced staff at the respective places, the transfer order cannot be said to be arbitrary. Then it is contended that the petitioner being an officer belonging to the Scheduled Castes, is entitled to be considered for retention of his posting nearest his home town. It is true that the instructions have been issued as reproduced at page No.18 of the paper book to that effect, yet they would be subject to the administrative exigencies. It is stated that the services of the experienced officer were necessary and so the transfer order came to be made. It is true that as far as possible, the convenience of the officer belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may be considered and he may be posted near the hoine town, but the authority has power to transfer him when the administrative need arises. It is further contended that the petitioner had made allegations against the officers and the transfer is a vindictive measure of punishment. It is seen that he was transferred on account of administrative exigencies.

pp. 463–464, margin G

Under these circumstances, we do not think that there is any justification to interfere with the impugned order. The petitiom:r, if so advised and is desirous, may make a representation before the appropriate authority and the appropriate authority may consider it on merits.

p. 464, margin C

The special leave petitions are dismissed. R.P. Petitions dismissed.

p. 464, margin D