BHANA RAM Vs. RAJASTHAN AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to provide all terminal benefits to the petitioner including pension, gratuity, etc. after granting revision of pay scale revised from time to time with all consequential benefits forthwith alongwith simple interest at the rate of 12% upon retiral benefits.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, at the initial stage, raised serious preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on account of the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of the High Court at Jodhpur. Therefore, I deem it just and proper to first decide the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur.

(3.) IN the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association (supra), the expression "cause of action" has been adjudicated in para 17 and 18 as follows: &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp" The expression "cause of action" has acquired a judicially-settled meaning. IN the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. IN the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously, the expression means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Every fact which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in "cause of action". It has to be left to be determined in each individual case as to where the cause of action arises. The Chief Justice of the High Court has not been conferred with the legislative competence to define cause of action or to declare where it would be deemed to have arisen so as to lay down artificial or deeming test for determining territorial jurisdiction over an individual case or class of cases. The permanent Bench at Jaipur has been established by the Presidential Order issued under sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Act. The territorial jurisdiction of the permanent Bench at Jaipur is to be exercised in respect of the cases arising in the specified districts. Whether the case arises from one of the specified districts or not so as to determine the jurisdictional competence to hear by reference to territory bifurcated between the principal seat and the Bench seat, shall be an issue to be decided in an individual case by the Judge or Judges hearing the matter if a question may arise in that regard. The impugned explanation appended to the order of the Chief Justice dated 23. 12. 1976 runs counter to the Presidential Order and in a sense it is an inroad into the jurisdiction of the Judges hearing a particular case or cases, pre-empting a decision to be given in the facts of individual case whether it can be said to have arisen in the territory of a particular district. The High Court is right in taking the view which it has done. It was submitted at the end by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Division Bench of the High Court in its impugned order has observed that the permanent Bench at Jaipur shall have "exclusive jurisdiction" to hear the cases arising out of the 11 specified districts and the High Court at Jodhpur shall not have jurisdiction to hear those cases which fall within the territorial jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench. He submitted that the use of word "exclusive" prefixed to "jurisdiction" is uncalled for. We find no substance in this contention as well. The purpose of the Presidential Order is to carve out and define territorial jurisdiction between the principal seat at Jodhpur and the permanent Bench seat at Jaipur. The cases are to be heard accordingly, unless the Chief Justice may exercise in his discretion the power vested in him by the proviso to para 2 of the Presidential Order. Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution provide how territorial jurisdiction shall be exercised by any High Court. Although the said clauses do not deal with principal seat or permanent Bench of any High Court but in our opinion, there is no reason why the principle underlying there under cannot be applied to the functioning of the bifurcated territorial jurisdiction between the principal seat and permanent Bench seat of any High Court. IN case of a dispute arising whether an individual case or cases should be filed and heard at Jodhpur or Jaipur, the same has to be found out by applying the test-from which district the case arises, that is, in which district the cause of action can be said to have arisen and then exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. " Meaning thereby, according to the above judgment, the facts of each case need be seen while exercising the territorial jurisdiction. Apparently, facts of the present case clearly speak that the pension sanctioning authority is Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner and Head of Department of the petitioner sits at Bikaner. As such the petitioner is having grievance at the hands of the authority who is situated at Bikaner, therefore, the cause of action after retirement of the petitioner arises at Bikaner because the petitioner is claiming relief against the authority which is in the Bikaner district and the same falls withing the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of the High Court at Jodhpur and as per the judgment of the apex Court the question of territorial jurisdiction is to be decided on the facts of each case.