A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment examines the contours of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India in the context of pensionary disputes of a retired employee. The Supreme Court addressed whether a writ petition challenging the stoppage of pension and recovery of pension amounts could be entertained by the Patna High Court when the employee had served in West Bengal but was receiving pension at his native place in Bihar. The Court clarified that cause of action must be assessed from the bundle of facts giving rise to the grievance and not merely from the place of employment or location of the authority.

The Court distinguished between two writ petitions filed by the deceased employee. The first writ petition related to refund of allegedly illegal deductions from provident fund and was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The subsequent writ petition challenged a later administrative action involving stoppage of pension after eight years and recovery of a substantial amount already paid. The Supreme Court held that these petitions arose from distinct causes of action, and dismissal of the earlier petition did not bar the later one.

Significantly, the Court reaffirmed that receipt of pension and its stoppage at the place of residence constitutes an integral part of cause of action. The hardship caused to a retired employee was emphasized, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens was held inapplicable. The judgment restores the writ petition before the Patna High Court and grants interim relief of provisional pension to the widow, reinforcing the constitutional mandate of access to justice.

Keywords: Territorial Jurisdiction, Cause of Action, Pensionary Rights, Article 226(2), Forum Non Conveniens, Retiral Benefits

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case emerges from a long-standing pension dispute involving a retired employee of Coal India Limited. The deceased employee had rendered service in West Bengal and retired in 2005, thereafter settling at his native place in Darbhanga, Bihar. Pensionary benefits were sanctioned and continuously paid for eight years without interruption. The dispute arose when the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner retrospectively declared the grant of pension as erroneous and ordered recovery of more than Rs. 8 lakhs, simultaneously stopping future pension payments.

The legal controversy was not confined to entitlement of pension alone. The central issue before the Supreme Court was procedural yet constitutionally significant, namely, whether the Patna High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging stoppage of pension. The High Court had dismissed the petition solely on jurisdictional grounds, relying on the earlier dismissal of a separate writ petition and the pendency of proceedings before the Jharkhand High Court.

The Supreme Court was thus called upon to examine the meaning of cause of action under Article 226(2), its relationship with pension disbursement, and the practical realities faced by retirees. The judgment situates itself within established constitutional jurisprudence while responding to the lived hardships of pensioners.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The husband of the appellant, late Bashishtha Narayan Mishra, was employed with Eastern Coal Fields Limited and retired on 30 April 2005. Initially, he had not opted for the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998, but exercised the option following the amendment notification dated 09 January 2002. Necessary transfers from provident fund to pension fund were effected, and pension was sanctioned after retirement.

Upon retirement, the employee settled permanently in Darbhanga, Bihar, and pension was credited to his savings account in State Bank of India, Darbhanga. In 2006, he filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking refund of Rs. 1,33,559, allegedly deducted illegally. This writ petition was dismissed in 2013 for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Subsequently, the employee approached the Jharkhand High Court for the same refund claim. During pendency of that petition, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner issued letters dated 07 October 2013 and 06 November 2013, declaring the pension grant illegal and directing recovery of over Rs. 8 lakhs, while stopping pension from November 2013.

Aggrieved, the employee filed a fresh writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging these letters. The Single Judge dismissed it, holding that jurisdiction lay with the Jharkhand High Court. The Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the writ petition challenging stoppage of pension was barred due to dismissal of an earlier writ petition on jurisdictional grounds?
ii. Whether part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Patna High Court under Article 226(2)?
iii. Whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens justified refusal of jurisdiction by the Patna High Court?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellant submitted that the cause of action for the 2014 writ petition was entirely distinct from the earlier writ petition. The earlier petition related to refund of deductions, whereas the later petition arose from stoppage of pension after eight years and demand for recovery of pension amounts already paid.

It was argued that pension was received at Darbhanga, and its stoppage directly affected the employee at that place, thereby conferring territorial jurisdiction on the Patna High Court. Reliance was placed on precedents such as Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India to establish that even a fraction of cause of action is sufficient.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondents contended that the employee had served in West Bengal and that the authorities were situated outside Bihar. It was submitted that the employee had already approached the Jharkhand High Court and thus accepted its jurisdiction.

The respondents argued that mere receipt of letters or pension at Darbhanga could not confer jurisdiction. The doctrine of forum non conveniens was invoked to submit that Jharkhand High Court was the more appropriate forum.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 226(2), Constitution of India
ii. Section 20, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
iii. Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948
iv. Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Patna High Court. The Court held that the High Court had erred in mechanically relying on the dismissal of the earlier writ petition without appreciating the distinct cause of action involved.

The Court emphasized that cause of action consists of every fact necessary to establish entitlement to relief. Since pension was continuously received at Darbhanga for eight years and its stoppage caused immediate deprivation there, part of the cause of action clearly arose within Bihar.

The Court relied extensively on Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair v. Narayanan Nair, Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, and Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India, reiterating settled principles of territorial jurisdiction.

The doctrine of forum non conveniens was rejected as inapplicable, particularly considering the hardship to a retired employee. The writ petition was restored before the Patna High Court. Additionally, the Court directed payment of provisional pension to the widow from December 2020, recognizing her right to sustenance.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio decidendi lies in the holding that stoppage of pension at the place where it is received constitutes a material part of cause of action under Article 226(2). Dismissal of an earlier writ petition on jurisdictional grounds does not bar a subsequent writ petition based on a distinct and later cause of action.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that compelling a retired employee to litigate far from his place of residence undermines access to justice. Pensionary disputes must be viewed through a humane lens, considering the vulnerability of retirees.

c. GUIDELINES

i. Territorial jurisdiction must be assessed on pleaded facts alone.
ii. Pension receipt and stoppage location are relevant for jurisdiction.
iii. Earlier dismissal on jurisdiction does not create estoppel for subsequent distinct causes.
iv. Courts must avoid technical rigidity in pension matters.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, [1994] 1 Supp SCR 252
ii. Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, [2000] 3 Supp SCR 82
iii. Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair v. Narayanan Nair, [2004] 2 SCR 202
iv. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, [2004] 1 Supp SCR 841
v. Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India, [2014] 7 SCR 1027

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Constitution of India
ii. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
iii. Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948