TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 1105
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ployed in Coal India Limited. He was working at Moira Colliery, Bankola Area, District Burdwan, West Bengal. Ministry of Coal, Government of India in exercise of power Under Section 3E of Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 and in supersession of the Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, 1971 notified a Family Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 dated 05.03.1998. Late husband of the Appellant did not opt for the pension Scheme notified under Notification dated 05.03.1998. 3.2 By Notification dated 09.01.2002 Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 was amended by inserting paragraph 2A in the Scheme providing that an employee, who had not opted for the Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, 1971 but is covered by the Provident Fund Scheme may opt for pension within a period of nine months. After the Notification dated 09.01.2002, the same was circulated by Eastern Coal Fields Limited to all Regional Commissioners/Assistant Commissioners. 3.3 The husband of the Appellant in pursuance of the Notification dated 09.01.2002 submitted the option opting for Pension Scheme, which option was forwarded to the Sr. Personnel Officers by Manager, Moira Colliery by letter dated 18.11.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he year 2002. It was stated that Pension of Shri B.N. Mishra was erroneously settled by Regional Commissioner, hence, Rs. 8,01,334/- is to be recovered towards pension payment from May, 2005 to September, 2013. 3.6 By further letter dated 06.11.2013 issued by Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Region-1, Asansol, he was directed to refund amount of Rs. 8,09,268/- and entire pension contribution alongwith interest. He was communicated that it has been decided to stop payment of monthly pension w.e.f. November, 2013. After receipt of the letter dated 07.10.2013, Shri B.N. Mishra sent a reply on 07.11.2013 stating that letter dated 07.10.2013 has been issued due to personal bias arising due to punitive action taken by appropriate authorities against Regional Commissioner, Region-1, Asansol on a petition filed by Shri B.N. Mishra under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Petitioner sent representations to Secretary, Ministry of Coal and Commission. 3.7 A Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 was filed by late Shri B.N. Mishra in Patna High Court where he challenged the letter dated 07.10.2013 and 06.11.2013 and also sought direction for payment of pension to the Petitioner w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nga, which pension having been stopped from November, 2013, the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Patna High Court and learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench erred in dismissing the writ petition relying on dismissal of earlier writ petition whereas cause of action of both the writ petitions were different and the Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 could not have been dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the writ petition had rightly been dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. He submits that late Shri B.N. Mishra after dismissal of the writ petition had filed writ petition in the Jharkhand High Court, which writ petition was still pending when he filed Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 and the writ petition could not have been entertained by Patna High Court. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 does not dispute that part of cause of action arose in territorial jurisdiction of Patna High Court, however, he submits that on the principle of forum conveniens, the writ petition could not have been entertained at Patna and the writ peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it Petition No. 5999 of 2014, which are the material facts or integral facts for claiming relief in the writ petition. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, Petitioner had pleaded that he retired on 30.04.2005 and thereafter settled at his native place in Darbhanga District, State of Bihar where in his savings account with State Bank of India, Darbhanga his monthly pension is being paid since May, 2005. In paragraphs 20 and 22, Petitioner has pleaded about the letter dated 07.10.2013 issued by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Region-1, Asansol and the letter dated 06.11.2013. Paragraphs 5, 20 and 22 are extracted below for ready reference: 5. That the Petitioner was subsequently promoted as Personnel Manager in Moira Colliery, Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bankola Area, P.O. Moira, Dist. - Burdwan from where he retired from service on 30/04/2005 and thereafter settled at his native village in Darbhanga Dist., Bihar where in his S/B A/C with State Bank of India, Darbhanga his monthly pension is being paid since May, 2005. Copy of notice of Superannuation vide letter No. ECL/C-5 (D) Superannuation/EE 1572 dated 23/24/11/2004 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-1. 20. Tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 13. We may first notice the order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction dated 04.08.2017. Paragraph 5 of the judgment gives reasons for dismissing the writ petition. In paragraph 5, mainly two reasons have been given by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition; (i) Earlier Writ Petition No. 13955 of 2006 for grant of retiral benefits was dismissed on 08.02.2013 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Petitioner did not move in LPA or before the Supreme Court; and (ii) When the petition of payment of retiral benefits is pending before the Jharkhand High Court, the Petitioner should have filed the writ petition before the same High court against the order of stoppage of pension as the payment of pension is also a part of retiral benefits. 14. In the LPA against the order of learned Single Judge, Division Bench vide judgment dated 03.05.2018 after quoting paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Patna High Court observed that: We do not find any legal infirmity in the view so taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. 15. The learned Single Jud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tna High Court. 18. Mulla on the Code of Civil Procedure while commenting on Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure defined cause of action in following words: The expression 'cause of action' has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense 'cause of action' means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact by which it would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court................... 19. P. Ramanatha Aiyar in Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, Volume 1, has defined the cause of action in following words: 'Cause of action' has been defined as meaning simply a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the Court a remedy against another person. The phrase has been held from earliest time to include every fact which is material to be proved to entitle ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er jurisdiction on the High Court of Calcutta, NICCO must show that at least a part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. That is at best its case in the writ petition. 6. It is well settled that the expression "cause of action" means that bundle of facts which the Petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. In Chand Kour v. Partab Singh [ILR (1889) 16 Cal 98, 102 : 15 IA 156] Lord Watson said: ... the cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the Defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the Plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the Plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour. Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. In other words the question whether a High Court has te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Section also deals with the jurisdictional aspect of the courts. As per that Section the suit could be instituted in a court within the legal limits of whose jurisdiction the "cause of action wholly or in part arises". Judicial pronouncements have accorded almost a uniform interpretation to the said compendious expression even prior to the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution as to mean "the bundle of facts which would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court". 39. In Read v. Brown [(1888) 22 QBD 128 : 58 LJQB 120 : 60 LT 250 (CA)] Lord Esher, M.R., adopted the definition for the phrase "cause of action" that it meant every fact which it would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court. It does not comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact which is necessary to be proved. 41. Even in the context of Article 226(2) of the Constitution this Court adopted the same interpretation to the expression "cause of action, wholly or in part, arises" vide State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties [ (1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t which would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court. Every fact which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in "cause of action". 17. In Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.) it has been stated as follows: 'Cause of action' has been defined as meaning simply a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person. The phrase has been held from earliest time to include every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the Plaintiff to succeed, and every fact which a Defendant would have a right to traverse. 'Cause of action' has also been taken to mean that particular act on the part of the Defendant which gives the Plaintiff his cause of complaint, or the subject-matter of grievance founding the action, not merely the technical cause of action. 25. Another judgment which needs to be noticed is Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 254 wherein this Court reiterated the meaning of cause of action in paragra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entations were entertained by the Respondents and replied and a decision on those representations were communicated to him on his home address in Bihar. Admittedly, the Appellant was suffering from serious heart muscle disease (dilated cardiomyopathy) and breathing problem which forced him to stay in his native place, wherefrom he had been making all correspondence with regard to his disability compensation. Prima facie, therefore, considering all the facts together, a part or fraction of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court where he received a letter of refusal disentitling him from disability compensation. 27. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of Patna High court in Saryu Singh v. The Union of India and Ors., 2015(2) PLJR 256. The above was a case where the Petitioner had claimed the due pensionary benefits whose grievance was that payment made to him was less payment. In the above context, the Division Bench in paragraphs 63, 64 and 66 laid down following: 63. Recently pointed out the Supreme Court, in Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329, that the question, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion 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. 30. Another submission which has been advanced by learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is that the writ petition was rightly dismissed on the principle of forum non conveniens. Forum non conveniens has been defined by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition in following words: The principle that a case should be heard in a Court of the place where parties, witnesses, and evidence are primarily located. 31. Black's Law Dictionary defines forum conveniens in following words: The court in which an action is most appropriately brought, considering the best interests and convenience of the parties and witnesses. 32. This Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra) has also referred to principle of forum conveniens. Following was stated in paragraph 30: Forum conveniens 30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinati....