Kerala HC dismisses petition for Performance Related Pay and service rewards citing lack of territorial jurisdiction

Kerala HC dismissed writ petition seeking release of Performance Related Pay and long term services reward with compound interest. The court held that no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction, as the employment was with respondent at New Delhi and the rejection communication was also sent to petitioner at New Delhi. Following precedent in K.G.Viswanathan case, the court ruled the petition was not maintainable before Kerala HC and upheld the single judge's decision dismissing the petition.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issue involves the territorial jurisdiction of the court to consider a writ petition seeking release of Performance Related Pay (PRP) and long term services reward momento with compound interest.

Summary:
The writ appeal was filed by the petitioner seeking direction to release the PRP for specific years and claiming long term services reward with compound interest. The preliminary objection raised by the second respondent regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the court was upheld by the learned single Judge, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. The petitioner argued that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the court due to receiving communications in Cochin. However, the second respondent contended that no part of the cause of action arose in Cochin. The court observed that the actions and communications related to the claim took place outside its jurisdiction, and receiving communications in Cochin did not confer jurisdiction. The court cited precedents to support its decision, emphasizing the importance of cause of action within the court's territorial limits.

Regarding the appellant's reliance on the judgment in Shanti Devi v. Union of India, the court distinguished the case by highlighting the admission of part of the cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction in that case. The court emphasized that receiving communications in a particular place does not automatically establish jurisdiction. The court also referred to a similar case where the distinction between 'right of action' and 'cause of action' was crucial in determining jurisdiction. The court further discussed the principles laid down in various judgments to support its decision that the writ petition was not maintainable due to lack of cause of action within its jurisdiction.

The court reiterated the necessity for the petitioner to establish that the legal right was infringed within the court's territorial limits to maintain a writ petition. It emphasized the distinction between cause of action and right of action, citing legal principles to support its conclusion. The court found no grounds to interfere with the judgment under appeal and dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the decision that no part of the cause of action arose within the court's jurisdiction.

---