Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Nabendu Ghosh vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 May, 2010
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas.
W.P.No.6195 (W) of 2010
Sri Nabendu Ghosh
v.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr K.K.Moitra, senior advocate, with Mr Madhusudan Sarkar and Mr Dipanjan Datta,
advocates, for the petitioner. Ms Rakhi Shroff, advocate, for the second to eighth
respondents.
Heard on: May 20, 2010.
Judgment on: May 20, 2010.
The Court: - The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated March 18, 2010 is seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents, particularly the fourth respondent, to release his retirement benefits in terms of demand notice dated January 12, 2010, Annexure P6 at p.36.
The first question is whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
The eight respondents in the case are the following:
"1. Union of India, service through the Secretary, Ministry of Water and Water Resource Department, Govt. of India Office at Shrama Sakti Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The National Projects Construction Corporation Limited, (A Government of India Enterprise) (herein under referred to as the N.P.C.C. Limited), service through the Chairman and Managing Director, office at Plot No. 67-68, Sector - 25, Faridabad, Haryana, PIN - 121004.
3. The Chairman & Managing Director, N.P.C.C. Limited, (A Government of India Enterprise) Office at Plot No.67-68, Sector-25, Faridabad, Haryana, PIN-121004. 4. The Additional General Manager (P & A), N.P.C.C. Limited (A Govt. of India Enterprise) at 2 Corporate Office, Plot No.67-68, Sector - 25, Faridabad, Haryana, PIN - 121004. 5. Zonal Manager, North Eastern Zone, N.P.C.C. Limited, (A Govt. of India Enterprise), NEZ (PMC) Works Zone Office at Silchar, Assam, PIN - 788001. 6. Zonal Manager, Eastern Zone N.P.C.C. Limited, (A Govt. of India Enterprise), 3A Dr. S. M. Roy Road, Kolkata -
700029. 7. Personal Officer, N.P.C.C. Limited, Corporate Office at Plot No. 67-68, Sector- 25, Faridabad, Haryana, PIN - 721004. 8. Senior Manager, N.P.C.C. Limited, Office at H.No. 2, 2nd Floor, Apanjan Pally, Sonai Road, Silchar (Assam)."
It is evident that only the sixth respondent has his office within the territorial limits of this court. Hence if it is found that any action or inaction of the sixth respondent is the subject matter of the case, then the petition can be entertained by this court. The petition can also be entertained by this court, if it is found that any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of this court.
The relevant facts are this. The petitioner was an employee of National Projects Construction Corporation Limited, a Government of India enterprise. In 1979 he was appointed and posted in Calcutta. He was transferable and was transferred to various places. His last place of work was NEZ (PMC) unit of the corporation at Silchar in the State of Assam. There he tendered resignation from service. By an order dated May 7, 2007, Annexure P1 at p.26, of the corporate office of the corporation in Haryana he was released from the services of the corporation with effect from February 2, 2007.
A copy of the order dated May 7, 2007 was sent to the following persons:
"2. N. Ghosh, Sr. EE(M), Flat No.102 (1st Floor), Giriraj Apartment, 31, Battala By Lane-2, Post-Hind Motor, Distt. - Hooghly, Pin-712 233.
(3) Zonal Manager, NPCC Ltd., NEZ(PMC). Silchar for information & necessary action. He is requested to intimate whether the Cheque deposited by Shri N.Ghosh has been credited to NPCC's Corporate Office Account.
(4) Unit Officer, NPCC Limited, IBBF Works, Lawngtlai (Mizoram) for information & necessary action.
(5) CVO/ CS/ SDM(F)-Cash/ Bill/ CR/ IR/ TS(CPF) / Board Section/PO(Disc.), NPCC Ltd., Corporate Office."
By a letter dated October 5/22, 2007, Annexure P2 at p.27, the corporate office of the corporation sanctioned the gratuity amount. A copy of the order was sent to the 3 petitioner at an address in the State of West Bengal, and a copy thereof was sent to the zonal manager of the corporation at Silchar in the State of Assam.
By a letter dated March 30, 2009, Annexure P4 at p.29, the petitioner requested the chairman and managing director of the corporation to release all his dues. A copy of the letter was sent to the corporation's eastern zone zonal manager in Calcutta. At last the petitioner sent the demand notice dated January 12, 2010 calling upon the chairman and managing director of the corporation to release the amount mentioned therein. Then alleging inaction he brought this petition.
It is evident from the case stated in the petition that the sixth respondent, the zonal manager of the eastern zone of the corporation, has absolutely nothing to do with the demands of the petitioner made in his notice dated January 12, 2010. There is no reason to say that the corporation was under an obligation to pay the petitioner any amount, if found due, through the zonal manager of its eastern zone.
By the order dated May 7, 2007, releasing the petitioner, the corporate office of the corporation directed its NEZ(PMC) Silchar zonal manager to take necessary action and inform the corporate office whether the cheque deposited by the petitioner had been credited to the corporate office account; and stated that the petitioner's dues would be paid only after receipt of no demand certificate. The eastern zone zonal manager of the corporation was not supposed to issue the no demand certificate.
It seems that after resigning from the services of the corporation the petitioner wanted the corporation to correspond with him at his address in the State of West Bengal. He tendered resignation at Silchar in the State of Assam and the resignation was accepted by the corporation at its corporate office in Haryana.
On these facts, I am unable to agree with Mr. Moitra, counsel for the petitioner, that since both the sixth respondent has his office and a substantial part of the cause of action 4 has arisen within the territorial limits of this court, this court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition. The sixth respondent has absolutely nothing to do with the petitioner's claim. He has been made a party to the petition only for invoking the jurisdiction of this court.
Simply because during a substantial part of the term of his employment, as submitted by Mr. Moitra, the petitioner was posted in the State of West Bengal, or after accepting his resignation the corporation corresponded with him at his addresses in the State of West Bengal, it cannot be said that any part of the cause of action on which this petition has been brought has arisen within the territorial limits of this court.
Yesterday the matter was called on for hearing and Mr. Moitra was given an opportunity to examine my decision dated July 16 & 20, 2009 in W.P. No.7030 (W) 2007 (Heiza Boilers (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.).
While submitting that he has nothing to say about the principles stated in the decision, Mr Moitra has invited me to consider the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendran Chingaravelu v. R.K.Mishra & Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 457.
Referring me to para.9 of the report he has said that even if a small fraction of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of this court, this court will have jurisdiction to entertain the petition. I invited his attention to Heiza Boilers to show that the proposition, stated in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., 2004 (6) SCC 254, was noticed by me.
For these reasons, I hold that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox sh (Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.) 5