Retired employee's petition for performance pay dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2)

Kerala HC dismissed a writ petition filed by a retired employee seeking release of Performance Related Pay and long service reward memento for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner retired from Delhi-based employment on 31.07.2014 but filed petition in Kerala HC. Court held that mere receipt of rejection communication in Kerala does not confer jurisdiction when cause of action arose outside Kerala jurisdiction. Exception exists only for pensionary claims, not employment-related claims. The employment dispute and rejection occurred in Delhi, making Kerala HC lack territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2).

---

---

Issues Involved: Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to consider a writ petition regarding release of Performance Related Pay (PRP) and long service reward memento.

Summary:
The writ petition sought a mandamus to release PRP for 2013-14 and 2014-15, and a long service reward memento with damages. The 2nd respondent raised a preliminary objection on territorial jurisdiction, contending that no part of the cause of action arose within the High Court's jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that since they are a pensioner drawing pension in Kerala, the petition should be maintainable in that jurisdiction.

The petitioner retired in 2014 and claimed PRP for 2013-14 and 2014-15, which was rejected in 2014. The petitioner argued that the rejection was subject to CMD approval, which was obtained, and subsequent communications indicated ongoing examination of the dues claimed. However, the High Court noted that the communications regarding the rejection and reasons for non-payment were received by the petitioner in Ernakulam, Kerala, where he currently resides.

The High Court considered precedents and held that the mere receipt of communications within its territorial jurisdiction does not confer jurisdiction if the cause of action arises outside that jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the dispute was not related to a pensionary claim within its jurisdiction, but rather to employment and claims rejected outside its jurisdiction. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction, with all contentions left open for appropriate proceedings.

---