- (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not given benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme though he has served for 21 years of service in the department of respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred for getting the benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme as well as for getting at least one time bound promotion and also for re-fixation of his pension. The petitioner has served in the State of Bihar i.e. respondent No. 1 and having retired in the year 1990, the petitioner is residing within the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, this petition has been preferred over here. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction and thus, no cause of action or part of cause of action arises within the State of Jharkhand. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also submitted that under sub-clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner ought to have preferred the writ petition before the Hon'ble Patna High Court. The petitioner has served within the State of Bihar and has retired from the State of Bihar in the year 1990 and. thus, merely because the petitioner is residing within the State of Jharkhand, it cannot give Jurisdiction to this Court to decide the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 relied upon the decision rendered by this Court, as reported in 2009 (3) JCR 325 (Jhr) : 2009 (3) JLJR 114 and submitted that residence of the petitioner cannot give a territorial jurisdiction to any High Court. The petitioner may move from one State to another, looking to the need of the petitioner, but, that does not mean that every High Court has territorial Jurisdiction to decide the issue, in question.
(2.) Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 also submitted that the petitioner cannot file a writ petition before this Court. He ought to have preferred writ petition before the Hon'ble Patna High Court because no cause of action or part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner has served within the State of Bihar and retired from the State of Bihar and, thus, the residence of the petitioner cannot give jurisdiction to this Court. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are referred in the aforesaid decided case.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons : (i) The present petitioner was serving in the Gaya Municipality in Urban Development Department, State of Bihar and he retired on 30th November, 1990. (ii) Merely because the petitioner is a resident within the State of Jharkhand that cannot give territorial jurisdiction to this Court to decide the issue, in question. No cause of action or part of cause of action has arisen within the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner is seeking at least one time bound promotion and revision in the pension on the basis of revision in the pay scale. (iii) It has been decided by this Court in the case of Narayan Mochi v. M/s Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Kolkata & Ors., 2009 3 JCR 325 that the situs of the petitioner Is not a cause of action nor it can be termed as a part of cause of action. Paragraphs 16 and 17 thereof read as under :-- (See JCR page 319) 16. The expression "cause of action" means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a Judgment In his favour by the Court. Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. It means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. For every action there has to be a cause of action, If not, the plaint or petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily. The entire bundle of facts pleaded need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved before the petitioner can obtain a decree, is the material facts. The material facts is also known as integral part of the cause of action. Unless the facts pleaded are such as have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case, they cannot give rise to a cause of action within the Court's territorial jurisdiction. The facts which have no bearing with the lis or dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to cause of action. 17. Thus, the petitioner, who resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, has no bearing with the dispute, involved in-the case and, therefore, his situs in Jharkhand is not a cause of action, because it has no bearing with the lis and, therefore, his residence within the State of Jharkhand cannot confer a jurisdiction to this Court, if it is otherwise not having. Residence of the petitioner cannot give jurisdiction to this Court. (iv) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aligarh Muslim University v. Vinay Engineering Enterprises (P) Ltd., 1994 4 SCC 710, especially in paragraph No. 2, as under :- 2. We are surprised, not a little, that the High Court of Calcutta should have exercised jurisdiction in a case where it had absolutely no jurisdiction. The contracts in question were executed at Aligarh, the construction work was to be carried out at Aligarh, even the contracts provided that in the event of dispute the Aligarh Court alone will have jurisdiction. The arbitrator was from Aligarh and was to function there. Merely because the respondent was a Calcutta-based firm, the High Court of Calcutta seems to have exercised jurisdiction where it had none by adopting a queer line of reasoning. We are constrained to say that this is a case of abuse of jurisdiction and we feel that the respondent deliberately moved the Calcutta High Court ignoring the fact that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of that Court. It clearly shows that the litigation filed in the Calcutta High Court was thoroughly unsustainable. (v) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, 1994 4 SCC 711, especially in paragraph No. 12, as under :- 12. Pointing out that after the issuance of the notification by the State Government under Section 52 (1) of the Act, the notified land became vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances and hence it was not necessary for the respondents to plead the service of notice under Section 52 (2) for the grant of an appropriate direction or order under Article 226 for quashing the notification acquiring the land. This Court, therefore, held that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. This Court, therefore, held that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. This Court deeply regretted and deprecated the practice prevalent in the High Court of exercising jurisdiction and passing interlocutory orders in matters where it lacked territorial jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the strong observations made by this Court in the aforesaid decision and in the earlier decisions referred to therein, we are distressed that the High Court of Calcutta persists in exercising jurisdiction even in cases where no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. It is indeed a great pity that one of the premier High Courts of the country should appear to have developed a tendency to assume jurisdiction on the sole ground that the petitioner before it resides in or carries on business from a registered office in the State of West Bengal. We feel all the more pained that notwithstanding the observations of this Court made time and again, some of the learned Judges continue to betray that tendency. Only recently while disposing of appeals arising out of SLP Nos. 10065-66 of 1993, Aligarh Muslim University v. Vinay Engineering Enterprises (P) Ltd., this Court observed :- We are surprised, not a little, that the High Court of Calcutta should have exercised jurisdiction in a case where it had absolutely no jurisdiction. In that case, the contract in question was executed at Aligarh, the construction work was to be carried out at Aligarh, the contracts provided that in the event of dispute the Aligarh Court alone will have jurisdiction, the arbitrator was appointed at Aligarh and was to function at Aligarh and yet merely because the respondent was a Calcutta based firm, it instituted proceedings in the Calcutta High Court and the High Court exercised jurisdiction where it had none whatsoever. It must be remembered that the image and prestige of a Court depends on how the members of that institution conduct themselves. 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 and put the entire system to ridicule. We are greatly pained to say so but if we do not strongly deprecate the growing tendency we will, we are afraid, be failing in our duty to the institution and the system of administration of justice. We do hope that we will not have another occasion to deal with such a situation. Thus, the residence of the petitioner cannot give territorial jurisdiction to the High Court. The basic requirement to be followed by the High Court is the cause of action. If the cause of action or part of cause of action has arisen within the State of Jharkhand then only this Court has Jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition, looking to the aforesaid aspect of the matter. (vi) The petitioner has served within the State of Bihar and also retired from the State of Bihar in the year 1990 and the petitioner is seeking one time bound promotion and that too from the State of Bihar, who is respondent No. 1, no cause of action has arisen within the State of Jharkhand nor even part of cause of action has been said to have arisen within the State of Jharkhand. In view of the aforesaid decisions also, the present petition is not tenable at law before this Court for want of territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action or part of cause of action is said to have been arisen within the territorial region of the State of Jharkhand. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid fact, reasons and judicial pronouncements, this writ petition is not tenable at law before this Court for want of territorial jurisdiction. I see no reason to entertain this writ petition and. hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed. 'However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a writ petition before the appropriate Court, in accordance with law.;