Jharkhand High Court
Havildar Tarakeshwar Kant Pras vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 September, 2009
Author: Gyan Sudha Misra
Bench: Chief Justice
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
L.P.A No. 103 OF 2009
Havildar Tarakeshwar Kant Prasad
Vs.
1.Union of India
2.The Deputy Controller of Defence Accounts
Pay & Account Office (Other Ranks), Secunderabad
3.The Garrison Engineer, Amritsar Cantt.
4.The Garrison Engineer, Mamun Cantt.
-------
CORAM HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.K.SINHA
For the Appellant M/s.R.Ojha, Md.K.Alam
For the Respondent Mr.Y.N.Mishra
---------
5/3.9.2009This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 21.1.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P (S) No.130/2009, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein was rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge observed that the cause of action arose at Pathankot and the recovery on account of payment to be made by the petitioner/appellant towards electricity dues was made from Sikandrabad. Besides electricity dues, certain recoveries by way of deductions were also ordered on account of ration allowance, journey allowance & D.A and Halt D.A, reservation charges and bus charges and all these recoveries were made without seeking any explanation or any notice from the petitioner. However, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the cause of action arose at Pathankot and the recovery was ordered to be made while the appellant was posted at Sekandrabad, whereas the writ petition was filed at Ranchi, and therefore, the writ petition cannot be held to be maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner/appellant, therefore, has preferred this appeal assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
It could be noticed from the records that the appellant, as a Havildar, is posted under Indian Army and in course of discharge of his duty, he is posted at different places and presently he is discharging his duty at Ranchi. The question, therefore, arose as to whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner could be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, although he is discharging duties under the control of the Central Government, i.e. Indian Army, and in course of discharge of his duty, he is posted at several places. It also cannot be lost sight of that even though the petitioner/appellant has been transferred from Secundrabad to Ranchi, his service book and all other materials in regard to his service are bound to have been transmitted to Ranchi. In the wake of this fact the question arose whether he can be compelled to take recourse to the legal remedy at his last place of posting and not his present place of posting.
When the counsel for the respondents was confronted with this query, he submitted that the appellant at least could have impleaded the Officers of the local office at Ranchi, who could have been questioned as to whether the recovery could be made from the petitioner's salary, but the petitioner/appellant failed to implead the Officers of the local office as necessary party in the writ petition and at the stage of appeal, it would not be legally permissible to implead them.
Under the circumstance, this appeal cannot be entertained and hence the same is dismissed. But in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to leave the liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition impleading the necessary parties to the writ petition, after which the question as to whether the writ petition could be entertained at Ranchi may also be considered on account of the fact that the petitioner is a member of a service which is having its offices all over India and whether it would be legally permissible to hold that even though a person who is posted at a particular place while discharging duties as a member of All India Service should be compelled to file a writ petition only at the place where the cause of action arose.
(Gyan Sudha Misra, C.J) (D.K.Sinha,J) dey