NATHABHAI BHAIJIBHAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. PH. Pathak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Hina Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. The short question that has arisen for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether if part of cause of action arises in the State of Gujarat, whether the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad will have jurisdiction or the Divisional office at Ajmer, Rajasthan would have jurisdiction in the matter where the impugned order has been passed.

(2.) The short facts are that the petitioner was working as 'Gangmate' and was posted at Adesar in Palanpur which is in the State of Gujarat. His pay was reduced by the impugned order dated 01.12.2001 which was passed by the Divisional Office, Ajmer [Rajasthan]. The impugned order was served on the petitioner at Adesar [Gujarat] and the order has taken effect at Gujarat and the pay-scale of the petitioner has been reduced. The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 01.12.2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench by filing O.A. No. 644/2002 dated 06.08.2004. The Tribunal has rejected the OA as not maintainable on the ground that it does not have any territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter as the petitioner was an employee of the Ajmer Division. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedural) Rules, 1987, which is extracted below :

(3.) From perusal of Rule 6( 1) (i) (ii), it is clear that it is open to an employee to file application before the Central Administrative Tribunal at the place where he was posted time being or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was posted at Adesar, which is in Palanpur [Gujarat]. The impugned order has been passed at the Divisional Office, Ajmer [Rajasthan], but it has been served and taken effect at Adesar at Palanpur. Therefore, part of the cause of action has arisen at Palanpur, [Gujarat] and the other part of the cause of action has arisen at Ajmer [Rajasthan]. The law is well settled that if the part of cause of action has arisen in a particular state then it is open to the petitioner to challenge the order before the appropriate authority in that part of the particular State. By 15th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1963, Clause (1 -A) was added to Article 226( 1) which was re-numbered as Clause (2) by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976. The effect of the amendment was that writ jurisdiction of the High Court was extended to those cases also where only a part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court. It is necessary to extract Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution which reads as below: