Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. So far as case of Balu Singh (supra) is concerned, the same is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. That was also a case where payment of pension to the petitioner retired from 10th Bn. Rajputana Rifles was dismissed by the learned Single Judge for want of jurisdiction of Rajasthan High Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that all the respondents reside outside the jurisdiction of the High Court and no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the High Court. Against dismissal of writ petition, DB writ petition was filed and it was held that the appellant was recruited in Rajasthan, pension, if payable, was to be paid in Rajasthan and refusal to pay pension was also communicated within the jurisdiction of this Court, then, irrespective of the fact that the respondents do not reside within the jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition can be entertained by this Court as a part of cause of action has accrued here. Thus, from the facts as stated above, it is clear that appellant before the Hon'ble High Court was recruited in Rajasthan, he was entitled to receive pension in Rajasthan and if refusal of payment of pension was communicated in Rajasthan, then there is jurisdiction of the High Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court has held that part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the High Court. Same is not the case here. In the instant case, the advertisement was issued by the respondents outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Pursuant to such advertisement, the applicant submitted his application and selection process was completed and result was declared outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The applicant was also informed about declaration of result and also to appear before the authorities outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The applicant was also informed about refusal regarding change of his option/order of preference-cum-merit position by the authorities outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. As such, simply because the applicant has submitted application from Jaipur and he has received communication at Jaipur cannot constitute a part cause of action.

6. That apart, as per provisions contained under Section 19(i) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 person aggrieved can maintain the application before this Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the order is passed and he is aggrieved of it. Admittedly, the order against which the applicant is aggrieved has been passed by the respondents at Delhi i.e. outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. As already stated above, all the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who passed the order and who took steps for issuing advertisement and completing the selection process are situated/residing at Delhi. Therefore, for the impugned order which is passed in Delhi, this Tribunal would not have territorial jurisdiction in view of the clear mandate of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.