Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Code of Civil Procedure – s. 20 – Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 – Family Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 – Territorial jurisdiction – The Government notified a Family Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 dated 05.03.1998 – Earlier, the late husband of the appellant did not opt for the said pension scheme – However, later the husband of appellant opted for the pension scheme by notification dated 09.01.2002 – The late husband of the appellant claimed payment for pension from Darbhanga, State of Bihar – A writ petition was filed by the husband of the appellant in Patna High Court where prayed for grant of refund of Rs.1,33,559/- which was wrongly withheld/ illegally deducted from him – The said writ petition was dismissed on 08.02.2013 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction – After dismissal of the said writ petition, the husband of appellant filed writ petition in Jharkhand High Court for the same relief – Thereafter, letters dated 07.10.2013 and 06.11.2013 were issued from the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to the husband of the appellant – The letter stated that since husband of appellant initially had not opted for pension scheme in pursuance of 1998 notification, he could not have opted for pension in the year 2002 – It was further stated that pension was erroneously settled by Regional Commissioner, hence, more than Rs.08 lakhs was to be recovered from the husband of the appellant – It was also communicated through same letters that it was decided to stop payment of monthly pension w.e.f. November, 2013 – Husband of appellant filed another writ petition in Patna High Court where he challenged the letters dated 07.10.2013 and 06.11.2013 – The Single Judge of the High Court after noticing the earlier order of the High Court dated 08.02.2013 and observing that after dismissal of writ petition, the petitioner had filed another writ petition before the Jharkhand High court and the same was pending, held that the order of stoppage of pension is part of retirement benefit, and petitioner ought to have filed the writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court – Hence, the writ petition challenging letters was again dismissed on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction – The LPA filed against the order of the Single Judge was also dismissed – On appeal, held: The Single Judge of the High Court did not correctly consider the facts and pleadings in the writ petitions filed – The earlier writ petition was filed for refund of wrongly withheld/ illegally detained amount and the subsequent writ petition challenging letters dated 07.10.2013 and 06.11.2013 was filed when payment of pension after 08 years was stopped and husband of appellant was directed to return the amount of more than Rs.08 Lakhs – The cause of action for filing a subsequent writ petition was entirely different – The Single Judge of the High Court committed error in dismissing the subsequent writ petition because of dismissal of earlier writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction – For a retiree, who is settled and receiving pension at Darbhanga, it cannot be said that it was necessary for him to file his petition in the Jharkhand High Court where his earlier writ petition was pending – The part cause of action had arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of Patna High Court as the husband of appellant was continuously receiving pension for last 8 years in Darbhanga – The stoppage of pension at the same place gave a cause of action – Thus, the said writ petition is revived at the Patna High Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Single Judge of the High Court did not correctly consider the facts and pleadings in Writ Petition No.13955 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in the year 2006 was where petitioner had prayed for refund of wrongly withheld/illegally detained amount of Rs.1,33,559/-. When the earlier writ petition was filed, there was no issue of non-payment of pension or stoppage of pension since the pension had been started w.e.f. May, 2005. The subsequent Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 was filed when payment of pension after 08 years was stopped and & ORS.
the petitioner was directed to return the amount of Rs.8,09,268/-. The cause of action for filing Writ Petition No.5999 of 2014 was entirely different. The Single Judge committed error in holding that in view of dismissal of the earlier writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the Writ Petition is also dismissed. [Para 15][290-D-G]
2. The second reason given by Single Judge that petitioner ought to have filed the writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court also does not commend to this Court. For a retiree, who is settled in Darbhanga and receiving pension at District Darbhhanga, it cannot be said that it was necessary for him to file his petition in the Jharkhand High Court where his earlier writ petition was pending. The subject matter of the earlier writ petition was entirely different and the dismissal of the writ petition does not preclude the petitioner to file subsequent writ petition in the same High Court. [Para 16][290-G-H; 291-A]
3. Form the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Patna High Court. The deceased petitioner was continuously receiving pension for the last 08 years in his saving bank account in State Bank of India, Darbhanga. The stoppage of pension of late husband of appellant affected him at his native place, he being deprived of the benefit of pension which he was receiving from his employer. The employer requires a retiring employee to indicate the place where he shall receive pension after his retirement. Late husband of appellant had opted for receiving his pension in State Bank of India, Darbhabga, State of Bihar, which was his native place, from where he was drawing his pension regularly for the last 08 years, stoppage of pension gave a cause of action, which arose at the place where the petitioner was continuously receiving the pension. This Court thus, is of the view that the view of the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench holding the writ petition not maintainable on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction was completely erroneous and has caused immense hardship to the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition stands revived before Patna High Court. [Para 29][298-F-H; 299-A-B]
Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 711 : [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 252; Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 640 : [2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 82; Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair v. Narayanan Nair and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 277 : [2004] 2 SCR 202; Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. (2004)
6 SCC 254 : [2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 841; Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 329 : [2014] 7 SCR 1027 – relied on.
Saryu Singh v. The Union of India and Ors. 2015 (2) PLJR 256 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.