1987 (4) TMI 497 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition at Gwalior.
2. Jurisdiction of the Gwalior Bench based on the cause of action.
3. Interpretation of the Presidential Order dated 28-11-1968.
4. Reconsideration of the decision in Kanti Prasad v. J.N.K.V. Vidyalaya.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Petition at Gwalior:
The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition at Gwalior, citing the Presidential Order dated 28-11-1968. They argued that the Gwalior Bench only has jurisdiction over cases arising in specific revenue districts, and since the impugned order was passed at Jabalpur and no part of the cause of action arose in Gwalior, the petition should not be maintainable at Gwalior. The petitioner countered this by arguing that the wrong pay fixation adversely affected him while posted at Gwalior, thus part of the cause of action arose there.

2. Jurisdiction of the Gwalior Bench Based on the Cause of Action:
The core issue was whether the Gwalior Bench had jurisdiction to hear the petition based on the cause of action. The petitioner relied on multiple precedents to argue that the adverse effects of the impugned order at his place of posting (Gwalior) constituted a part of the cause of action, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Gwalior Bench. The court examined the definition of "cause of action" as understood in legal terms and concluded that if any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Gwalior, the Bench would have jurisdiction.

3. Interpretation of the Presidential Order Dated 28-11-1968:
The court analyzed the Presidential Order, which established the jurisdiction of the Gwalior Bench over cases arising in specified revenue districts. The term "cases arising" was interpreted to mean the place where the whole or part of the cause of action arises. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation in Nasiruddin v. S.T.A. Tribunal, which held that if the cause of action arises wholly or in part within the specified areas, the concerned Bench would have jurisdiction. Applying this interpretation, the court held that since part of the cause of action (the adverse effects of the pay fixation) arose at Gwalior, the Gwalior Bench had jurisdiction.

4. Reconsideration of the Decision in Kanti Prasad v. J.N.K.V. Vidyalaya:
The court revisited the decision in Kanti Prasad, where it was held that the mere posting of the petitioner at Gwalior did not confer jurisdiction on the Gwalior Bench as the cause of action arose entirely at Jabalpur. The court found this decision to be flawed as it did not consider the adverse effects of the order on the petitioner at his place of posting. The court emphasized that the consequences of an order form part of the cause of action and arise at the place where the consequences are felt. Therefore, Kanti Prasad was overruled, and it was held that the Gwalior Bench had jurisdiction to entertain cases where part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Gwalior Bench had jurisdiction to entertain the petition as part of the cause of action (the adverse effects of the pay fixation) arose at Gwalior. The preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition was rejected, and the decision in Kanti Prasad was overruled. The case was directed to be placed before the regular Division Bench for further hearing on the admission of the petition.