M. SHANKAR RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXEMPTION allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of All the petitioners, who are 31 in number, are serving the respondent No.2 at Hyderabad office. Benefits which the petitioners claim of extension of age of retirement from 58 to 60 years will be by means of enforcement of the relevant circulars or challenging the circulars in its implementation with respect to petitioners' services at Hyderabad. Admittedly, at Hyderabad the respondent No.2 has a branch office where the petitioners serve. Merely because Union of India is sued as respondent No.1 cannot mean that any cause of action will accrue at Delhi nor is any writ to be passed against respondent No.1 for enforcement inasmuch as writ or directions to be issued for enforcement will be only against the respondent No.2/employer and which admittedly has a branch office at Hyderabad where the petitioners are working. Merely because the head office is in Delhi, so far as the cause of action in the present case is concerned, jurisdiction will not be of the Courts at Delhi.

(2.) I have had an occasion to consider the aspect of territorial jurisdiction in a recent judgment in the case of Bharat Electronic Technical Cadre Association and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. in W.P.(C) No.1851/2013 decided on 12.4.2013. Paragraphs 4 to 14 of this judgment are relevant to show that in the present case this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction and the said paras read as under: -

(3.) WRIT petition is accordingly dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction with liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate independent proceedings in the competent Court having territorial jurisdiction.