PAITRUS EKKA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had served in the State of Bihar as Sub Inspector and he retired on 29th February, 2004 from the State of Bihar, especially from Patna Special Branch, Bihar and now, the petitioner is staying within the State of Jharkhand and he wants pension from the Treasury office of Lohardaga, State of Jharkhand and therefore, the present petition has been preferred.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that necessary information have already been given by the Accountant General Office, State of Bihar to the Accountant General, State of Jharkhand, so as to make the payment of the pension, from the State of Jharkhand.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondents-State submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition, looking to Sub Article (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as no cause of action, much less, any part of the action has been arisen, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, looking to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in , (1994) 4 SCC 710, , (1994) 4 SCC 711, , (2007) 5 SCC 336, when no cause of action has been arisen, within the State of Jharkhand, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents-State that the petitioner has served for the whole life, within the State of Bihar even after, bifurcation of the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand, the petitioner continues to be an employee of the State of Bihar and retired as Sub Inspector on 29th February, 2004 from the State of Bihar and hence, this Court may not entertain the writ petition, preferred by the present petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents-State that locus of a person is not to be seen, at all, A person may move from Jammu Kashmir to Kanyakumari, but, what has to be seen under Sub Article (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is cause of action. If any part of the action is arisen over here, then only this Court can entertain this writ petition and in view of the aforesaid decisions and also looking to Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed,