Suresh Narayan Punekar vs Chairman And Managing Director ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 552 Bom

                                    1                    54-WP-8638-2016

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        54 WRIT PETITION NO.8638 OF 2016

                           SURESH NARAYAN PUNEKAR

                                    VERSUS

                 CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
              CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA MUMBAI AND ANOTHER
                                 ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr G.K. Thigale Girish K. (Naik) Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr S.V. Warad

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.J.

                                DATE     : 17th JANUARY, 2022


 PER COURT :

1. The present petition is filed against the order negativing the

claim of the petitioner for pension.

2. Mr Warad, the learned counsel has raised the preliminary

objection that this Court may not exercise territorial jurisdiction.

3. Mr Thigale, learned counsel submits that if the petitioner would

have been sanctioned pension, the petitioner would have received the

pension at his native village at Ghansawangi, Dist. Jalna. In view of that,

part of cause of action can be said to arise within the territorial jurisdiction

of this Court. The learned counsel to buttress his submissions, relied on

the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shanti Devi Vs. Union of

India (UOI) and Ors. reported in (2020) 10 SCC 766.

2 54-WP-8638-2016

4. We have also heard Mr Warad, the learned counsel for

respondent No.1.

5. The petitioner was working with Central Bank of India at Jhansi,

Lucknow Zone in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner tendered his

resignation at Jhansi. The said resignation was accepted at Jhansi.

6. The request of the petitioner for pension was rejected on 1st

September, 2020 by respondent No. 2 at Mumbai. Subsequently, the

petitioner made representation from the residence at Pune to respondent

No. 2. Respondent No. 2 again rejected the same under order dated 28th

October, 2010. The petitioner was communicated about the said rejection

at his Pune address.

7. All the aforesaid facts would establish that no part of cause of

action has arisen within the terrestrial jurisdiction of this Court.

8. In case of Shanti Devi (supra), the petitioner therein was

sanctioned pension and was receiving the pension for 8 years at

Darbhanga, State of Bihar. After receiving the pension for 8 years, the

pension was stopped. In that context, the Apex Court held that the pension

that was received by the petitioner therein at Darbhanga was stopped and

so the Patna High Court had the territorial jurisdiction.

9. As discussed above, in the present case, no part of cause of

action has arisen at Aurangabad. The resignation is submitted at Jhanshi,

State of Uttar Pradesh. The said resignation is accepted at Jhanshi. The

3 54-WP-8638-2016

proposal of the petitioner for pension is rejected at Bombay by respondent

No.2. The communications are made by the petitioner for grant of pension

from Pune with respondent No. 2 at Mumbai.

10. In light of the aforesaid facts, no part of cause of action has

arisen within territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

11. In view of that, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the

petitioner to avail the remedy before the appropriate forum. No costs.

[ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. ] [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

mta