Summary
The Court held that Patna High Court had territorial jurisdiction over the challenge to stopping a pension regularly paid at Darbhanga and demanding repayment. That later cause of action differed from an earlier deduction-refund dispute pursued in Jharkhand. The writ petition was revived, and provisional pension for the substituted widow was ordered from December 2020 pending the High Court’s final decision.
Issues
- Whether stoppage of pension received at Darbhanga supplied part of the cause of action within Patna High Court’s territory.
- Whether the earlier proceedings or forum-convenience principles required the later challenge to be brought elsewhere.
Provisions considered
- Article 226(2), Constitution of IndiaApplied territorial jurisdiction based on a material part of the cause of action arising where pension was regularly received and then stopped. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, 33, 34)
Held
- Territorial jurisdiction depends on material facts pleaded that bear a nexus to the requested relief. Here pension had been regularly paid into the designated Darbhanga account for eight years, and its stoppage deprived the pensioner there of that benefit. A material part of the cause of action therefore arose within Patna High Court’s territory. (¶¶ 11, 12, 21, 22, 23, 25, 29)
- The 2014 petition challenged subsequent pension stoppage and repayment demands, unlike the earlier petition seeking refund of deductions. Dismissal of the earlier petition for territorial reasons and pursuit of that separate claim in Jharkhand did not bar the later Patna petition on its distinct cause of action. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 33, 34)
- Although a High Court may in appropriate circumstances decline jurisdiction on forum-convenience grounds despite a territorial nexus, that principle did not justify dismissal here. The pensioner’s residence and place of receipt made Patna a convenient forum for this claim. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 33)
- The widow substituted after the pensioner’s death was entitled to provisional pension for sustenance from December 2020 during the revived writ proceedings, expressly subject to final orders in those proceedings. (¶ 35)
Result
Appeal allowed; territorial-jurisdiction dismissal set aside and writ petition revived before Patna High Court. Respondents 4–8 directed to ensure provisional pension from December 2020, subject to final decision; substantive pension entitlement was not finally determined.