SHIB DAS BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not given benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme though he has served for 21 years of service in the department of respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred for getting the benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme as well as for getting at least one time bound promotion and also for re-fixation of his pension. The petitioner has served in the State of Bihar i.e. respondent No. 1 and having retired in the year 1990, the petitioner is residing within the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, this petition has been preferred over here. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction and thus, no cause of action or part of cause of action arises within the State of Jharkhand. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also submitted that under sub-clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner ought to have preferred the writ petition before the Hon'ble Patna High Court. The petitioner has served within the State of Bihar and has retired from the State of Bihar in the year 1990 and. thus, merely because the petitioner is residing within the State of Jharkhand, it cannot give Jurisdiction to this Court to decide the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 relied upon the decision rendered by this Court, as reported in 2009 (3) JCR 325 (Jhr) : 2009 (3) JLJR 114 and submitted that residence of the petitioner cannot give a territorial jurisdiction to any High Court. The petitioner may move from one State to another, looking to the need of the petitioner, but, that does not mean that every High Court has territorial Jurisdiction to decide the issue, in question.

(2.) Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 also submitted that the petitioner cannot file a writ petition before this Court. He ought to have preferred writ petition before the Hon'ble Patna High Court because no cause of action or part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner has served within the State of Bihar and retired from the State of Bihar and, thus, the residence of the petitioner cannot give jurisdiction to this Court. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are referred in the aforesaid decided case.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons :