TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 1105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rawing his pension regularly for the last 08 years, stoppage of pension gave a cause of action, which arose at the place where the Petitioner was continuously receiving the pension. The view of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench holding the writ petition not maintainable on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction was completely erroneous and has caused immense hardship to the Petitioner. The Appellant is entitled for an interim order in the writ petition for her sustenance. The Appellant's husband, who had filed the writ petition had died during the pendency of the writ petition. After his death, the Appellant, the widow was substituted. Six years have passed after filing of the writ petition wherein stoppage of pension was questioned. Appellant being the widow is also entitled for pensionary benefit for her sustenance since her husband was receiving pension - during the pendency of the writ petition the Appellant is entitled to be paid provisional pension which shall be subject to final decision in the writ petition - appeal allowed. - Civil Appeal No. 3630 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18375 of 2018) - - - Dated:- 5-11-2020 - Ashok B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ara 4(2) of Scheme, 1998. Late B.N. Mishra was to retire on 30.04.2005. His papers for settlement of pension were forwarded to The Regional Commissioner-1, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Asansol. By letter dated 30.11.2005 written by Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Region-1, Asansol, the late husband of the Appellant was asked to deposit the amount of Rs. 39,198/- towards recovery of pension contribution. The pension was sanctioned to Shri Mishra after about 14 months from retirement, thereafter, he started receiving pension w.e.f. May, 2005. 3.4 Late Shri B.N. Mishra being native of Village Bhuskol, Police Station, Darbhanga, District Darbhanga, he had claimed payment for pension from Darbhanga, State of Bihar. Pension started in account of Late Shri B.N. Mishra with State Bank of India, Darbhanga, State of Bihar. A Writ Petition No. 13955 of 2006 was filed by late Shri B.N. Mishra in Patna High court where he prayed for grant of refund of Rs. 1,33,559/-, which was wrongly withheld/illegally deducted from the writ Petitioner. The said writ petition was dismissed on 08.02.2013 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Learned Single Judge held that Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Learned Single Judge observed that on similar facts, the said writ petition having been dismissed on 08.02.2013 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction and writ petition having been filed by Petitioner before the Jharkhand High Court, which is pending, the order of stoppage of pension is part of retirement benefit, hence, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. A LPA No. 1265 of 2017 was filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 04.08.2017. During the pendency of writ petition, Shri B.N. Mishra died and his wife Shanti Devi was substituted as writ Petitioner. LPA was filed before the Division Bench against the judgment of learned Single Judge, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment, aggrieved by which order, this appeal has been filed. 4. We have heard Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for Appellant, Shri Sreekumar C.N., for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Kaustubh Shukla for Respondent Nos. 5 and 8. Shri Uddyam Mukherjee appeared for Respondent No. 4. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that High Court committed error in dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d had retired on 30.04.2005 from Burdwan, West Bengal. It is submitted that Shri B.N. Mishra having accepted the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court could not have filed writ petition at Patna High Court. The husband of the Appellant had not opted for the Coal Mines Pension Scheme in 1998 but he opted for the Scheme second time in the year 2002 after subsequent notification dated 09.01.2002. The deductions made by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was in accordance with Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998. Earlier writ petition filed by Petitioner being Writ Petition No. 13955 of 2006 having been dismissed by the Patna High Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction and no appeal having been filed by Shri B.N. Mishra the said judgment became final. Shri B.N. Mishra after dismissal of his earlier writ petition filed Writ Petition No. 4930 of 2013 before the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, which clearly proves that Shri B.N. Mishra had accepted the jurisdiction of Jharkhand High Court and pursued his writ petition there. The mere fact that letters dated 07.10.2013 and 06.11.2013 were received at Darbhanga, the Patna High Court shall have no territorial jurisdiction t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y he declared the payment of pension to the Petitioner from May 2005 till date as wholly against the provisions of Para-15 of Coal Mines Pension Scheme 1998 which says that option once exercised shall be final and since the Petitioner had firstly submitted a negative option so the subsequent submission of option in the affirmative is against the Scheme. Further the Petitioner was also directed to refund the entire amount of pension amounting to Rs. 8,01,334/- with interest paid to him from May 2005 to October 2013. Furthermore, the pensioner was also informed vide the aforesaid notice that payment of pension to him shall be stopped from November, 2013. Copy of letter No. CPF/32/Legal/B.N. Mishra/R-1/ASN/3481 dated 7/10/2013 along with relevant portion of Para-15 of CMPS 1998 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-12. 22. That the Regional P.F. Commissioner did not wait for a reply from the Petitioner to the notice issued by him and instead in a haste issued letter No. CPF/32/1/Legal/B.N. Mishra/R-1/4056 dated 6/11/2013 whereby he stopped payment of pension to the Petitioner from the month of Nov. 2013 and also directed him to refund the entire amount of pension paid to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner had prayed for refund of wrongly withheld/illegally detained amount of Rs. 1,33,559/-. When the earlier writ petition was filed, there was no issue of non-payment of pension or stoppage of pension since the pension had been started w.e.f. May, 2005. The subsequent Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 was filed when payment of pension after 08 years was stopped and the Petitioner was directed to return the amount of Rs. 8,09,268/-. The cause of action for filing Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 was entirely different. The learned Single Judge committed error in holding that in view of dismissal of the earlier writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the Writ Petition is also dismissed. 16. The second reason given by learned Single Judge that Petitioner ought to have filed the writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court also does not commend us. For a retiree, who is settled in Darbhanga and receiving pension at District Darbhanga, it cannot be said that it was necessary for him to file his petition in the Jharkhand High Court where his earlier writ petition was pending. The subject matter of the earlier writ petition was entirely different and the dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ves the Plaintiff his cause of complaint, or the subject matter of the grievance founding the action, not merely the technical cause of action. 20. Black's Law Dictionary defines the cause of action in following words: A group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person............ 21. This Court had occasion to consider the cause of action in context of Article 266 of the Constitution and has explained the expression cause of action in large number of cases. We may refer to a Three Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 711 where in paragraphs 5 and 6 following has been laid down: 5. Clause (1) of Article 226 begins with a non obstante Clause -- notwithstanding anything in Article 32 -- and provides that every High Court shall have power throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction , to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, for the enforcement of any of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rently, the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition. Therefore, the question whether in the instant case the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition in question even on the facts alleged must depend upon whether the averments made in paragraphs 5, 7, 18, 22, 26 and 43 are sufficient in law to establish that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. 22. This Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 640 had occasion to consider territorial jurisdiction of High Court Under Article 226(2). Dealing with constitutional amendment made in Article 226(2), this Court laid down following in paragraph 37: 37. The object of the amendment by inserting Clause (2) in the Article was to supersede the decision of the Supreme Court in Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao [AIR 1953 SC 210] and to restore the view held by the High Courts in the decisions cited above. Thus the power conferred on the High Courts Under Article 226 could as well be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n cause of action means that bundle of facts which the Petitioner must prove, if traversed to entitle him to a judgment in his favour. Having given such a wide interpretation to the expression Ahmadi, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) speaking for M.N. Venkatachaliah, C.J. and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J., utilised the opportunity to caution the High Courts against transgressing into the jurisdiction of the other High Courts merely on the ground of some insignificant event connected with the cause of action taking place within the territorial limits of the High Court to which the litigant approaches at his own choice or convenience. The following are such observations. (SCC p. 722, para 12) If an impression gains ground that even in cases which fall outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, certain members of the court would be willing to exercise jurisdiction on the plea that some event, however trivial and unconnected with the cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of the said court, litigants would seek to abuse the process by carrying the cause before such members giving rise to avoidable suspicion. That would lower the dignity of the institution a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. In paragraph 18, following was held: 18. The facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be granted. Those facts which have nothing to do with the prayer made therein cannot be said to give rise to a cause of action which would confer jurisdiction on the Court. 26. Another judgment which has been relied by learned Counsel for the Appellant is Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India and Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 329. In the above case, the Petitioner had filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs including disability compensation and pecuniary damages. The Petitioner approached the Patna High Court for grant of various reliefs. Although, he was declared unqualified by orders issued by the Shipping Department, Government of India, Mumbai. This Court held that Patna High Court has a jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Following was laid down in paragraph 17: 17. We have perused the facts pleaded in the writ petition and the documents relied upon by the Appellant. Indisputably, the Appellant reported sickness on account of various ailments including difficulty in breathing. He was referred to hospital. Consequently, he was signed of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and character of the proceedings Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In order to maintain a writ petition, the Petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has been infringed by the Respondents within the territorial limit of the Court's jurisdiction. 64. In the backdrop of the position of law, as discussed above, it needs to be noted that the writ Petitioner was, admittedly, an employee of Coal India Limited and as per the terms and conditions of his employment, the writ Petitioner, as an employee, is, admittedly, required to be paid his pension and pensionary benefits by his employer at Patna. 66. If, therefore, the writ Petitioner is not paid the sum of money, which is due and payable to him as pension and pensionary benefits, at Patna, it becomes obvious that his right to receive due and payable pension and pensionary benefits, at Patna, is being denied; consequently the infringement of his right or his sufferance of injury is at Patna. 28. The above judgment of the same High Court was relevant in the facts of the present case, which judgment although was delivered prior in time, but was not noticed by the learned Single Judge as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney [AIR 1941 Cal 670], Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal [AIR 1949 Cal 495], Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies Cold Storage (P) Ltd. [1997 CWN 122], S.S. Jain Co. v. Union of India [ (1994) 1 CHN 445] and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India [AIR 1994 Del 126]. 33. As noted above, the learned single Judge has also observed that Petitioner ought to have filed the writ petition in Jharkhand High Court where his earlier writ petition was pending. The earlier writ petition which was initially filed in 2006 in Patna High Court was for refund of the amount as noted above. After dismissal of the writ petition by Patna High Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, Shri B.N. Mishra had filed a Writ Petition No. 4930 of 2013 in Jharkhand High Court for the relief which was claimed in Writ Petition No. 13955 of 2006. As noted above, the cause of action for filing the Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 was entirely different. Stoppage of pension and asking for refund of more than Rs. 08 lakhs amount had serious adverse effect on the Petitioner, who was staying at his native pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
