TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jabalpur, (for short, the University ). He is aggrieved by his pay fixation and seeks a direction to the University for fixation of his pay in the scale of ₹ 700-1600 by giving him five increments over the pay which he was drawing in his earlier place of posting. The respondents say that the petition is not maintainable at Gwalior, because as per the Presidential Order dated 28-11-1968 issued under Section 51(2), States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the Gwalior Bench has jurisdiction and power only in respect of the cases arising in the Revenue Districts of Gwalior, Shivpuri, Datia, Guna, Vidisha, Bhind and Morena and because neither the impugned order of the University was passed at Gwalior, nor any part of the cause of action could be said to have arisen in any of the Revenue Districts falling within the jurisdiction of Gwalior Bench of the High Court. Reliance is placed in Kanti Prasad (supra). The learned counsel for the petitioner cited Gurdit Singh v. Munsha Singh (1977) 1 SCC 791 : (AIR 1977 SC 640) in order to show what the term 'cause of action' means and submitted that the wrong fixation of his pay by the impugned order (Annexure P-2) adversely affecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not be maintainable at Gwalior. It was, therefore, argued that Kanti Prasad (supra) required reconsideration. In the order of reference, it has been mentioned that the decision in Kanti Prasad (supra) has a far reaching effect, which has hitherto been lost sight of Say for instance, a transfer order or an order of supersession emanating from Bhopal, but affecting an employee at Gwalior would also be beyond challenge in Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, because a case arising out of such an order cannot be said to be a case arising in the Revenue District of Gwalior. Yet we have been entertaining and deciding such petitions at Gwalior. We therefore, proceed to examine the correctness of the decision in Kanti Prasad in the light of the order of reference and the various decisions cited at the Bar. The Presidential Order dated 28-11-1968 reads as follows :-- In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956), I, Zakir Husain, President of India, after consultation with the Governor of Madhya Pradesh and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, hereby establish a permanent B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h came to be ' passed at Lucknow then Lucknow would have jurisdiction though the original order was passed at a place outside the area in Oudh. It may be that the original order was in favour of the person applying for a writ. In such case an adverse appellate order might be the cause of action. The expression 'cause of action' is well known. If the cause of action arises wholly or in part at a place within the specified Oudh areas, the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action arises wholly within the specified Oudh areas, it is indisputable that the Lucknow Bench would have exclusive jurisdiction in such a matter, If the cause of action arises in part within the specified areas, in Oudh it would be open to the litigant who is the dominus litis to have his forum convenient. The litigant has the right to go to a Court where part of his cause of action arises. In such cases, it is incorrect to say that the litigant chooses any particular Court. The choice is by reason of the jurisdiction of the Court being attracted by part of cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court. Similarly, if the cause of action can be said to have arisen part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of a right and no more. In a wider and more comprehensive sense, it has been used to denote the whole bundle of material facts which a plaintiff must prove in order to succeed. These are all those essential facts without the proof of which the plaintiff must fail in his suit. In W.W. Joshi, (AIR 1959 Bom 363) (supra), the Bombay High Court considered the maintainability of three petitions filed by the persons, who were in the service of the former State of Madhya Pradesh and whose services were terminated by the then Government of Madhya Pradesh, in the light of the provisions of Section 88(b), States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which read as follows : -- 88. Where, immediately before the appointed day, an existing State is subject to any liability in respect of an actionable wrong other than breach of contract, that liability shall :- (a) (b) If there be two or more successor States and the cause of action arose wholly within the territories which as from that day are the territories of one of them, be a liability of that successor State. After explaining the meaning of the term 'cause of action', it was held that: ................the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lior. If he fails to prove that the Appointment order has taken effect and that he has become an employee of the University, he would not be entitled to any relief against the University. That being the position, the fact that the order of appointment was made and the further fact that the appointment was accepted by joining the post would form part of a cause of action and it would arise at the place the order is made, as also at the place the order is implemented by joining the post. We accordingly hold that a part of cause of action having arisen at Gwalior, this Bench has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. We now come to consider the correctness of the decision in Kanti Prasad (supra). Kanti Prasad was a servant of the University posted at Gwalior. His grievance was that although he is senior to Shri Solanki his claims for the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Agronomy were not duly considered and that he was not even interviewed for the said post along with Shri Solanki. The petition was held to be not maintainable at Gwalior, because nothing was found to have happened within the Gwalior District which could be said to have furnished a cause of action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt failed to take notice of the fact that the evil consequences of the promotion order in favour of Solanki also formed part of a cause of action and that it arose at a place where the consequences fell on the petitioner, besides the place where the order was made. To put it differently, it was not noticed in Kanti Prasad that the petitioner could not have succeeded in his petition only by showing that the order was passed and the interview held at Jabalpur. He was further required to prove that the order had the effect of superseding him in disregard of his claim for promotion. The place where he was superseded would be the place for accrual of his cause of action. Kanti Prasad (supra) does not, therefore, lay down--good law and deserves to be overruled. - -. In D.L. Suresh (AIR 1983 Kant 43) (supra), the petitioners were chartered accountants having residence in Bangalore. They filed their nominations to the Central and Regional Councils of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India which had its office at Delhi. The petitioners sent their nomination papers by registered post as required by the regulations to Delhi and the respondent Institute despatched the orders reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
