2022 (11) TMI 1485 - HC - Income Tax

Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to consider a writ petition regarding release of Performance Related Pay (PRP) and long service reward memento - petitioner, admittedly, retired from service on 31.07.2014 and was permitted to continue occupying his quarters at Delhi till 25.11.2014 - HELD THAT - As decided by Full Bench decision of this Court in Registrar, Indian Maritime University, Chennai v. Dr. K.G. Viswanathan and another 2014 (10) TMI 1074 - KERALA HIGH COURT the receipt of a communication within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, by itself, would not confer jurisdiction on that High Court where the cause of action has arisen outside such jurisdiction. The same point is reiterated by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in in Manish Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and others 2020 (5) TMI 739 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT as well. An exception exists in the case of pensionary claims of persons who are drawing their pension within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court concerned, even though they had worked outside such jurisdiction. In the instant case, the dispute raised by the petitioner is not with regard to any pensionary claim that he is entitled to receive at his place of residence within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The claim specifically is with regard to the release of the amounts which had been declined by Ext.P3 communication. The claim is with regard to his employment with the 2nd respondent at New Delhi and the rejection is also by Ext.P3 which, according to the respondents, was communicated to the petitioner at Delhi. Even if all the contentions of the petitioner are accepted, therefore, the receipt of communications with regard to rejection of a claim, the cause of action in respect to which has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court, by itself, would not confer jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. The mere fact that the petitioner had been sending representations from Kerala or that he had received communications in Kerala are therefore insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court going by the binding decisions of the Full Bench as well as the Apex Court in Shanti Devi v. Union of India and other 2020 (11) TMI 1105 - SUPREME COURT referred to therein. Thus this writ petition is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

Summary

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.