Delhi High Court
Sanjay Kumar Gandhi vs Union Of India & Anr. on 22 July, 2009
Author: Sunil Gaur
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: July14, 2009
Judgment pronounced on: July22, 2009
+ W.P. (C ) No. 1494 of 2007
% Sanjay Kumar Gandhi .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Saxena, Advocate
versus
(1) Union of India ...Respondent No.1
Through: Nemo
(2) Institute of Pesticide Formulation Technology
...Respondent No.2
Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh and Mr. Ankur
Chhibbar, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
SUNIL GAUR, J.
1. Non-functional scale of Rs. 8,000 - Rs.13,500 in terms
of Office Memorandum of 24th June, 2005, issued by the
respondents, is sought by the petitioner in this writ petition.
Petitioner - Sanjay Kumar Gandhi, is a Private Secretary to
the Director of Institute of Pesticides Formulation
W.P.(C ) No. 1494 of 2007 Page 1
Technology, an autonomous body under the Government of
India.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1998,
respondent No.1- State/Department had constituted a
Committee for pay fixation of employees of respondent no.
2- Institute of Pesticide Formulation Technology on CDA
pattern and the said Committee decided to offer the post of
Senior Data Operator (Clerical Cadre) to the petitioner and
vide order, Annexure-I, the pay of the petitioner was
provisionally fixed at Rs.4,500/- in the scale of Rs.4,500-125-
7000 with effect from 1st October, 1998.
3. The stand of the petitioner is that on 24th June, 2005,
the Department of Personnel and Training had issued a
Circular, (Annexure-O), for grant of pay scale of Rs.8,000-
13,500 to Stenographers, Grade A & B of Central Secretariat
Stenographer Service with effect from 1st January, 1996, on
notional basis with actual benefits with effect from 3rd
October, 2003 and vide order of 25th January, 2006,
(Annexure-P), the aforesaid circular, (Annexure-O), was
made applicable to respondent No. 2 as well. Petitioner
asserts that in March, 2006, respondent no. 1 constituted a
Committee for reconstructing the administrative setup of
respondent No. 2. Petitioner is not only seeking the grant of
W.P.(C ) No. 1494 of 2007 Page 2
non-functional scale but is also praying for a direction to the
respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for
promotion to the post of Establishment Officer.
4. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent No.1
nor any counter has been filed by respondent No.1 -UOI.
5. Respondent No. 2, in its counter affidavit, has taken
preliminary objection of the territorial jurisdiction and has
taken a stand that respondent no.2 is a registered Society
under the Department of Chemicals of Government of India
and respondent no. 2- Institute of Pesticide Formulation
Technology (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institute') is
situated at Gurgaon, Haryana, outside the territorial
jurisdiction of this court. On merits, stand taken by
respondent no. 2- Institute is that the Office Memorandum of
11th April, 2001, is only for Stenographers in Non-Secretariat
Central Government Offices and is not applicable to
autonomous institutions and has no relevance to respondent
no.2, where there is only one post of Personal Secretary to
Director. Regarding Circular of 24th June, 2005, of
Department of Personnel and Training, it has been stated by
respondent no. 2-Institute that the same is applicable to
Stenographers in Central Secretariat and is not applicable to
Stenos/Personal Secretaries of autonomous bodies.
W.P.(C ) No. 1494 of 2007 Page 3
Respondent no. 2-Institute, has clarified in its counter
affidavit that the post of Private Secretary to Director (on
which the petitioner is working) has not been touched at all
during the Cadre review exercise and the petitioner was not
considered for the post of Establishment Officer as he did not
possess the required experience in the field.
6. In the rejoinder to the counter of respondent no.2-
Institute, the stand taken by the petitioner in the writ
petition is reiterated.
7. After having heard counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the material on record, I shall be dealing with the
question of territorial jurisdiction in the first instance.
8. Petitioner is resident of Gurgaon, Haryana. Respondent
no.2- Institute is located in Gurgaon, Haryana, and it is
stated that it has not got any other branch or office in India
and its Principal Executive Officer is its Director, who is
stationed in this Institute at Gurgaon, Haryana. The
management of this Institute is in the hands of its Director.
Respondent No.2- Institute relies upon a decision of this
court in W.P.(C) No. 6536 of 2005 "Dr. S.K. Das vs. UOI &
Others", decided on 21st April, 2005, wherein it has been
declared that in a matter pertaining to respondent no. 2,
Delhi Courts do not have any territorial jurisdiction.
W.P.(C ) No. 1494 of 2007 Page 4
Respondent no.2- Institute claims that its Annual Report is
also released from the Institute, which is located outside the
territorial jurisdiction of this court i.e. at Gurgaon, Haryana.
9. On the contrary, petitioner relies upon decisions
reported in 135 (2006) Delhi Law Times 414 (DB);
(1994) 4 SCC 711 and AIR 2004 SC 2321 to contend that
this court can exercise its powers under Article 226 of
Constitution of India and issue directions to the respondents
as part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial
jurisdiction of this court, as the registered office of
respondent No.2- Institute is at New Delhi and the
Representation made by the petitioner to the respondent,
was considered by the respondent at New Delhi and the
circulars relied upon by the petitioner have been also issued
from Delhi.
10. There is nothing on record to show that the registered
office of Respondent no.2 is located at Delhi or that relief
prayed for, has to be granted by Respondent no.1.
11. After having gone through the decisions relied upon by
the petitioner, I find that the principles of law governing the
territorial jurisdiction highlighted therein, are not in dispute,
but there is a direct judgment of this Court "Dr. S.K. Das vs.
UOI & Others" W.P.(C) No. 6536 of 2005, wherein this Court
W.P.(C ) No. 1494 of 2007 Page 5
has clearly held that the matters pertaining to respondent
No.2 are outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court and
the relevant observations made by this Court are as under:-
"I am of the view that this court does not
possess territorial jurisdiction since the cause
of action has arisen outside Delhi. The fact
that the Petitioner resides in Delhi does not
clothe this Court with jurisdiction. There is also
no merit in the specious argument that since
the Respondent Society is under the
Department of Chemical and Petrochemicals,
merely by impleading the Union of India
through its Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals
and Fertilizers, this court will stand sufficiently
possessed with territorial jurisdiction".
12. I find myself in complete agreement with the aforesaid
observations made in the case of Dr. S.K. Das (supra) and I
hold that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain
this matter.
13. Since this court does not possess the territorial
jurisdiction to entertain this matter, therefore, this writ
petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to
approach the competent court of territorial jurisdiction to
seek the redressal of the grievance made herein.
14. With the aforesaid directions, this petition and pending
application, if any, stands disposed of.
15. No costs.
July 22, 2009 Sunil Gaur, J.
rs
W.P.(C ) No. 1494 of 2007 Page 6
