9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .20,52,923/- and the long service reward memento, amounting to 130 grams of 24 carat gold coins, both with compounded interest at the rate of 12% from 31.12.2014 till date of actual payment. i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to pay a consolidated damages of Rs.50,00,000/- to the petitioner as damages." 2. The preliminary objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court to consider the issue was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and a statement of preliminary objection was filed on 03.08.2022 contending that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and that therefore this Court woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard to release of performance related pay for the period 2013-14 and 2014-15 as well as the value of long term service reward memento with compound interest thereon. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner stood rejected by Ext.P3 proceedings of the DGM (HR) dated 11.09.2014. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ext.P3 was subject to approval of the CMD in order to comply with the instructions of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and settlement of terminal dues and it is only once Ext.P3 is approved that the order could have been implemented. However, a perusal of Ext.P3 itself would show that the CMD had approved the decisions on 11.09.2014 and affixed his signature showing such approval on 15.09.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t where the cause of action has arisen outside such jurisdiction. The same point is reiterated by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court as well. An exception exists in the case of pensionary claims of persons who are drawing their pension within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court concerned, even though they had worked outside such jurisdiction. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Shanti Devi v. Union of India and other is specifically with regard to the deprivation or curtailment of pension which is being paid to the retired officer within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court concerned. In paragraph No.28 of the said judgment, it is observed as follows: "28. The deceased petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , therefore, the receipt of communications with regard to rejection of a claim, the cause of action in respect to which has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court, by itself, would not confer jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. The mere fact that the petitioner had been sending representations from Kerala or that he had received communications in Kerala are therefore insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court going by the binding decisions of the Full Bench as well as the Apex Court referred to therein.
In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. All the contentions of the parties are left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
