Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devender Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 February, 2026
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
CWP-4032-2026 (O&M) 1
119
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-4032-2026 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 13.02.2026
DEVENDER SINGH
....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
....RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr.Navdeep Singh, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Roopa Atwal, Advocate and
Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for the respondent-UOI.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
Prayer
1. This Civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the illegal letter dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) read with termination letter dated 03.02.2026 (Annexure P-1), issued without a show cause notice to the petitioner, citing policy dated 13.05.2021 (Annexure P-6), which has no nexus, connection or applicability to the employment of the petitioner under the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) and instead pertains to empanelment for 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:33 ::: CWP-4032-2026 (O&M) 2 "Security Agencies", along with costs, compensation and all consequential benefits.
Contentions Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a resident of Punjab and continues to suffer civil consequences within the territorial limits of this Court. It is further contended that the denial of vigilance clearance, which formed the basis of the impugned termination, was processed and approved by higher Headquarters situated within the jurisdiction of this Court, and therefore a material part of the cause of action has arisen here.
It is argued that under Article 226(2) of the Constitution, even if a part of the cause of action arises within the territorial limits of a High Court, that Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. It is argued that the termination letter dated 03.02.2026 (Annexure P-1) whereby the contractual engagement of the petitioner as Officer In Charge (OIC), ECHS Polyclinic, Nalagarh, came to be discontinued, visited him with stigma and should have conformed to the principles of natural justice.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as OIC at ECHS Polyclinic, Nalagarh, which is situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The appointment order, the performance of duties, the communications pertaining to vigilance clearance, and the impugned termination order all relate to and operate within Nalagarh.
It is contended that the entire bundle of essential facts giving rise to the lis have arisen within Himachal Pradesh and that the appropriate forum for redressal is the Himachal Pradesh High Court. It is argued that the mere fact that 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:33 ::: CWP-4032-2026 (O&M) 3 the impugned letter dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) whereby vigilance clearance was denied to the petitioner was issued by the Stn Headquarters ECHS Cell, Chandimandir located in within the jurisdiction of this Court does not constitute an integral part of the cause of action.
Analysis Having heard counsel for both parties and having perused the material placed on record, the challenge in the present writ petition is founded upon allegations of arbitrariness, violation of principles of natural justice, and reliance upon a policy which, according to the petitioner, has no applicability to his appointment. However, before this Court can traverse the merits of the controversy, it must first address a threshold issue that goes to the very root of maintainability, as to whether this Court possesses territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition.
In the present case, it is evident that the petitioner was appointed to serve at Nalagarh, his duties were discharged there, the alleged denial of vigilance clearance vide letter dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) operated in relation to that appointment and the termination order dated 03.02.2026 (Annexure P-1) brought his contractual engagement at Nalagarh to an end. In service jurisprudence, the legal injury ordinarily occurs at the place where the order operates and where the employment stands terminated. It is trite law that the situs of the employment and the place where the impugned order takes effect constitute the core of the cause of action.
The submission that the Headquarters involved in processing or approving the impugned decision dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) was situated within the jurisdiction of this court does not alter this conclusion. Administrative processing at a superior office forms part of the internal decision-making 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:33 ::: CWP-4032-2026 (O&M) 4 mechanism, it does not, by itself, give rise to a cause of action unless the impugned order is made operative or enforced within that jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would mean that the location of a superior administrative authority would determine jurisdiction, thereby permitting litigants to choose forums on the basis of administrative hierarchies rather than the situs of the legal injury. Such an approach would encourage forum shopping, a practice consistently deprecated by constitutional courts.
Equally unavailing is the contention that the petitioner resides in Punjab and suffers consequences here as residence of a litigant is not synonymous with cause of action. If residence were to be treated as determinative, territorial limitations embodied in Article 226(2) would be rendered nugatory. The constitutional scheme envisages a disciplined exercise of jurisdiction, anchored in the place where the cause of action substantially arises.
This Court is therefore constrained to hold that no integral or material part of the cause of action has arisen within its territorial jurisdiction. The entire substratum of the dispute is situated within the State of Himachal Pradesh.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent High Court, namely the Himachal Pradesh High Court, if so advised. All questions on merits are left open to be agitated before the appropriate forum.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
13.02.2026 JUDGE
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable :Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:33 :::