Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Patna High Court dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge's order that had dismissed a writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant, Shanti Devi, is the widow of late Shri Bashishtha Narayan Mishra, who was employed in Coal India Limited and worked at Moira Colliery in West Bengal. After retirement on 30.04.2005, he received pension at his residence in Darbhanga, Bihar, through State Bank of India. In 2013, the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Asansol, issued letters dated 07.10.2013 and 06.11.2013 directing recovery of over Rs.8 lakhs and stopping pension from November 2013. The late Mr. Mishra had earlier filed a writ petition (No.13955 of 2006) in Patna High Court seeking refund of amounts deducted, which was dismissed on 08.02.2013 for lack of territorial jurisdiction. He then filed a writ petition in Jharkhand High Court (No.4930 of 2013). Subsequently, he filed a fresh writ petition (No.5999 of 2014) in Patna High Court challenging the 2013 letters and stoppage of pension. The Single Judge dismissed this petition on 04.08.2017, also on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, relying on the earlier dismissal. The Division Bench affirmed. The Supreme Court framed two issues: whether the 2014 writ petition was similar to the 2006 petition, and whether part of the cause of action arose within Patna's jurisdiction. The Court held that the cause of action for the 2014 petition was different—it arose from the stoppage of pension and recovery notices, which were received by the petitioner at his residence in Darbhanga, Bihar. The earlier petition concerned deductions made during employment. The Court noted that the respondent did not dispute that part of the cause of action arose in Bihar. The principle of forum conveniens was not applicable as the petitioner had a right to approach the court where part of the cause of action arose. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remitted the matter to the Patna High Court for hearing on merits.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Territorial Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Part of cause of action for challenging stoppage of pension and recovery notices arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Patna High Court where the petitioner resided and received pension, even though employment was in West Bengal - Held that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction (Paras 10-12). B) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Dismissal of earlier writ petition on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction does not bar a subsequent writ petition on a different cause of action - Held that the earlier dismissal was not on merits and the subsequent petition involved distinct facts (Paras 3.4-3.7, 10). C) Service Law - Pension - Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 - Stoppage of pension and recovery of amounts paid - The impugned letters dated 07.10.2013 and 06.11.2013 directing recovery and stopping pension were received by the petitioner at his residence in Darbhanga, Bihar, giving rise to cause of action within Patna High Court's jurisdiction - Held that the High Court should have entertained the writ petition (Paras 3.5-3.6, 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Patna High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the stoppage of pension and recovery notices, when the petitioner resided and received pension in Bihar but had served in West Bengal.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment of Patna High Court dated 04.08.2017 and order of Division Bench in LPA No.1265 of 2017 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Patna High Court for hearing on merits. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Cause of action for pension stoppage arises at place of receipt
- Principle of forum conveniens
- Res judicata not applicable when cause of action is different
