INDRAGYAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant Sri V. P. Shukla and learned counsel for the respondents Sri Krishna Deo Rai alongwih Sri S.C. Mishra, who had earlier filed the affidavits in this matter on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The appeal questions the view taken by the learned Single Judge on the issue of territorial jurisdiction in this matter. The issue is as to whether the appellant would have the dominus litus to file the petition before the Allahabad High Court. The learned Single Judge has held that in view of the fact that the communication under which the appellant was required to join his services, not only once but on several occasions, was tendered in the State of Rajasthan and therefore, no part of cause of action arose for this Court to assume jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Shukla has vehemently urged that the appellant had sought voluntary retirement under the then existing scheme which was granted and after receipt of benefits, he retired and was staying at Mau (Chibo), district Chitrakoot (then district Banda), U.P.. On account of the reversal of the position relating to the rule of voluntary retirement by the Apex Court, the respondents repeatedly sent communications to the appellant to re -join the Forces and to surrender the emoluments that had been received by him as post - retiral benefits.