PREM KUMAR HANDA Vs. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay pension due to the petitioner under the National Housing Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 2003 (for short, 'the Regulations') along with interest up to date. A further prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 20.4.2006 (Annexure P17) passed by respondent No. 2. The petitioner has contended that he retired from the service of the National Housing Bank (hereinafter described as 'respondent No. 1') as Executive Director on 31.10.2000. Prior thereto, he had chequered career having joined the Reserve Bank of India in the initial years and thereafter joined respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 1.3.1989 and after earning various promotions, retired as Executive Director as stated above. It is the case of the petitioner that the Regulations were notified in the year 2003 and in accordance thereof, he was entitled to receive pension on the basis of ten months average emoluments as contemplated in Regulation 2(d) read with Regulations 2(q) and 34(2) of the Regulations and despite the fact that he had been regularly representing to the respondents, his claim was not being granted and pursuant to his efforts, he had received communication dated 20.4.2006 from respondent No. 2 informing him that the matter is under consideration and in the same very letter, the following two options were given:

(2.) TO consider the qualifying service for pension including your service as ED (up to your retirement in October,2000) along with applicable DR (Part -Ill). This will result in recovery of amount paid in excess on account of reduction in DR from 1.5.2005 to 31.1.2006 as shown in the annexure -II.

(3.) UPON notice having been issued, the respondents entered appearance and filed their written statement in which they took up a preliminary objection that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition because the principal office of respondent No. 1 is situated at New Delhi and no branch or subordinate office of it is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.