2020 (11) TMI 1105 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Allows Appeal, Grants Provisional Pension, Affirms Maintainability of Writ Petition

Shanti Devi Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Patna High Court, and held that Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 was maintainable at the ... Territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition - part of cause of action for filing the Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Patna High Court or not - Petitioner served in the State of West Bengal under the authorities and organizations which are located either in States of West Bengal or Jharkhand - recovery of pension contribution - HELD THAT:- The 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 B.N. Mishra 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 Shri B.N. Mishra had opted for receiving his pension in State Bank of India, Darbhanga, 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. The view of the learned 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. The Appellant is entitled for an interim order in the writ petition for her sustenance. The Appellant's husband, who had filed the writ petition had died during the pendency of the writ petition. After his death, the Appellant, the widow was substituted. Six years have passed after filing of the writ petition wherein stoppage of pension was questioned. Appellant being the widow is also entitled for pensionary benefit for her sustenance since her husband was receiving pension - during the pendency of the writ petition the Appellant is entitled to be paid provisional pension which shall be subject to final decision in the writ petition - appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the writ petition filed by late Shri B.N. Mishra being Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 is similar to Writ Petition No. 13955 of 2006 and whether the Patna High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitionRs.2. Whether part of the cause of action for filing Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Patna High CourtRs.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the writ petition filed by late Shri B.N. Mishra being Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 is similar to Writ Petition No. 13955 of 2006 and whether the Patna High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitionRs.The Supreme Court observed that the earlier writ petition (No. 13955 of 2006) was filed for the refund of an amount wrongly withheld, whereas the subsequent writ petition (No. 5999 of 2014) was filed after the stoppage of pension payments and a demand for refund of pension already paid. The cause of action for the two writ petitions was entirely different. The earlier writ petition did not involve the issue of non-payment or stoppage of pension. The Supreme Court found that the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction based on the dismissal of the earlier writ petition.2. Whether part of the cause of action for filing Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Patna High CourtRs.The Supreme Court held that part of the cause of action did arise within the territorial jurisdiction of Patna High Court. Late Shri B.N. Mishra was receiving his pension in his bank account in Darbhanga, Bihar, and the stoppage of pension affected him at his native place. The letters demanding the refund of the pension amount were addressed to him at his residence in Darbhanga. Therefore, the cause of action for the writ petition arose at the place where he was receiving his pension.The Court referred to several precedents to define 'cause of action,' emphasizing that it includes every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to support his right to the judgment of the court. The Court concluded that the facts pleaded in the writ petition had a sufficient nexus to confer jurisdiction on the Patna High Court.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Patna High Court, and held that Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 was maintainable at Patna High Court. The Court also directed that provisional pension be paid to the appellant from December 2020, subject to the final decision in the writ petition.