P. G. SAMUEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition has been filed under Art.226 and Art.227 of Constitution of India, 1950 (in short, the Constitution), after petitioner's application before Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (in short, the Tribunal) was rejected on ground that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain that petition.

(2.) Factual position is as follows: Petitioner was working as Pharmacist in Central Reserve Police Force, Madhya Pradesh (in short, C.R.P.F.). By order dated 29th July 1999, he was relieved to take up his posting at 132 Bn. C.R.P.F., Assam on transfer. He did not report for duty there, but applied for medical leave. Before any order on his medical leave application was passed, petitioner proceeded to his native place in Kerala, from where he sent a representation for retention at Shivpuri stating certain reasons for that. He also applied for voluntary retirement. Meanwhile, he received order dated 7th October 1999 passed in respect of his representation, stating that same should be directed through Group Centre, Shivpuri. He was also asked to report for duty at 132 Bn. as directed earlier. Application was filed before Tribunal challenging both these orders. Tribunal held that mere fact that intimation regarding representation was received by him within State of Kerala did not confer any jurisdiction on Tribunal to entertain the application as no cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction.

(3.) In support of application, it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that S.19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (ia short, the Act) deals with jurisdiction and it, inter alia, provides that where cause of action has arisen either in whole or in part within its territorial jurisdiction, an application can be entertained. Learned counsel for Central Government, on the other hand, submitted that mere receipt of an intimation does not constitute and give rise to a cause of action. When case was taken up, we wanted learned counsel for petitioner to state as regards jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the Writ Application and nature of such application. It was urged by learned counsel for petitioner that under Art.226 (2) of Constitution, Writ Application can be entertained. According to him, receipt of intimation within territorial jurisdiction of Tribunal as well as of this Court constitutes and gives rise to cause of action. Therefore, Tribunal should have entertained the application and in any event, this Court can entertain writ application and interfere in the matter as injustice has been done to him.