Jurisdictional Analysis in Pension Stoppage Case

In a recent legal case concerning pension stoppage, the court delved into a detailed analysis of jurisdictional issues. The focus was on determining whether part of the cause of action for the writ petition fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the Patna High Court. This analysis is essential in understanding the court’s decision-making process and unraveling the complexities of legal jurisdiction. The insights provided by the court shed light on the significance of establishing proper territorial jurisdiction in legal proceedings.


  • The Regional Commissioner sent a letter in 2005 asking for a pension contribution of Rs.39,198 from the late husband of the appellant.
  • The pension payment to late Shri B.N. Mishra was erroneously settled and an amount of Rs.8,01,334 was to be recovered.
  • After receiving notice of the writ petition filed by late Shri B.N. Mishra, a letter was issued in 2013 to stop the pension payment and request a refund.
  • The petition filed by late Shri B.N. Mishra in Jharkhand High Court proved his acceptance of that court’s jurisdiction.
  • The appellant reported sickness leading to an order declaring him permanently unfit for sea service.
  • Various letters were issued directing the refund of pension amounts received by late Shri B.N. Mishra.
  • The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
  • The Division Bench upheld the dismissal of the petition based on jurisdictional grounds.
  • P.F. Commissioner declared the payment of pension to the petitioner as against the provisions of Coal Mines Pension Scheme 1998.
  • Late Shri B.N. Mishra filed a Writ Petition challenging the letter dated 07.10.2013.
  • Learned Single Judge noticed an earlier order of the High Court dated 08.02.2013 dismissing the previous Writ Petition No.13955 of 2006 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
  • Division Bench of the High Court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge without considering the facts or pleadings of the writ petition.
  • Petitioner in the LPA stated that cause of action in 2013 cannot be the subject matter of the writ petition filed in 2006, which was dismissed on 08.02.2013 for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Also Read: Transfer of Writ Petitions for Chartered Accountants’ Tax Audit Guidelines


  • The key issue in question is whether part of the cause of action for filing Writ Petition No 5999 of 2014 arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Patna High Court.
  • This issue is interrelated with another question in the case.
  • The determination of this issue is crucial for establishing the proper jurisdiction for the petition.
  • The analysis of the facts and evidence will be essential in addressing this issue effectively.
  • Clarification on the territorial jurisdiction of the Patna High Court will be central to resolving this part of the case.

Also Read: Analyzing Interference with Acquittal in Legal Conviction Case


  • Prima facie, it is acknowledged that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court.
  • A Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in Saryu Singh Vs. The Union of India and Ors., 2015(2) PLJR 256 was cited by the learned counsel for the appellant.
  • There is a disagreement regarding the forum conveniens principle between the parties, with respondent Nos. 1 to 3 asserting that the writ petition should have been filed in the Jharkhand High Court.
  • It is argued by respondent Nos. 5 and 8 that the late Shri B.N. Mishra retired from Burdwan, West Bengal, and hence the writ petition may not have been appropriately filed in the Patna High Court.
  • The writ petition was dismissed based on the principle of forum non conveniens, as argued by respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Also Read: Judicial Review on Sentence and Compensation in Criminal Case


  • The learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing the writ petition based on lack of territorial jurisdiction.
  • The petitioner, a retired employee, was receiving pension in Darbhanga and had a right to file the petition in Patna High Court where part of the cause of action arose.
  • The court emphasized on the principle of forum conveniens, stating that the pension stoppage causing hardship to the petitioner was a key factor.
  • The High Court’s dismissal based on lack of territorial jurisdiction was deemed erroneous and caused immense hardship to the petitioner.
  • The stoppage of pension at the petitioner’s native place affected his pension benefits which he was entitled to.
  • The court also highlighted the importance of the plaintiff proving necessary facts to support their right to judgment.
  • The employer’s requirement for the retiring employee to indicate their pension receiving place was mentioned as crucial.
  • There was a discussion on the cause of action for the writ petition to be entertained by the Patna High Court.
  • The adverse effects of pension stoppage and the demand for refund on the petitioner staying in Darbhanga were considered.
  • The nexus between the facts pleaded in the writ petition and the basis for granting a prayer was deemed essential.
  • The argument on forum non conveniens was found unsubstantial and resembling the jurisdictional aspect defined in the Code of Civil Procedure.
  • The expression ’cause of action’ has a judicially settled meaning in the context of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code.
  • Cause of action can be understood in a restricted sense as the circumstances leading to the infraction of a right or the immediate reason for a legal action.
  • In a wider sense, cause of action includes all the facts that the petitioner must prove to obtain a favorable judgment.
  • Territorial jurisdiction for a High Court to entertain a writ petition is determined based on where the cause of action, either wholly or partly, has arisen.
  • The High Court can exercise its power even if the seat of the Government, authority, or the residence of the person against whom the writ is issued is outside its territorial jurisdiction.
  • The High Court must consider all facts pleaded in the petition to determine territorial jurisdiction, without verifying the truth of those facts.
  • The question of territorial jurisdiction should be answered based on the averments made in the petition.
  • High Court may exercise its power under clause (1) if the cause of action, in whole or in part, arises within the jurisdiction of the court.
  • Judicial pronouncements have accorded a uniform interpretation to the expression ’cause of action’ prior to the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
  • The term ’cause of action’ refers to the bundle of facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove to support their right to court judgment.
  • Various court cases have defined ’cause of action’ as the factual situation entitling a person to seek a remedy in court against another.
  • The jurisdiction of a High Court to entertain a petition depends on whether a part of the cause of action has arisen within its territorial limits.
  • The inclusion of ’cause of action’ in Article 226(2) expanded the area for issuing writs by different High Courts.
  • Even a small fraction of the cause of action accruing within a court’s jurisdiction gives it the authority to hear the case.
  • The phrase ‘forum non conveniens’ has also been defined in legal terms.
  • Recent judgments emphasize the importance of establishing that the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of the court in writ petitions.
  • The reference to ‘forum conveniens’ highlights the court where an action should be appropriately brought for the convenience of parties and witnesses.
  • Appellant is entitled to an interim order for her sustenance as per the view of the court.
  • The husband of the appellant, who filed the writ petition, passed away while the petition was ongoing.


  • Appeal allowed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction
  • Judgment of the Patna High Court set aside
  • Original writ petition found maintainable at Patna High Court
  • Error found in the dismissal of the writ petition
  • Appellant, the widow, substituted after her husband’s death
  • Six years passed since filing the writ petition on pension stoppage
  • Appellant entitled to pensionary benefit for sustenance
  • Appellant entitled to provisional pension during the pendency of the writ petition
  • Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 directed to ensure payment of provisional pension to the appellant from December 2020
  • Provisional pension subject to final orders in the writ petition
  • Writ petition revived before the Patna High Court


Case Number: C.A. No.-003630-003630 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *