Delhi High Court
Jai Karan vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 February, 2016
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11313/2015 & CM No.29638/2015
JAI KARAN ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Jaspreet Singh Kapur, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. G.M. Goyal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P. VAISH
ORDER
% 26.02.2016
1. The present petition has been listed subject to an objection raised by
the Registry with regard to its maintainability on the ground that this Court is
not vested with the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same.
2. The petitioner herein has filed the present petition assailing the order
dated 3.6.2015, passed by the Inspector General, CISF, Kolkata, whereunder
his representation dated 13.4.2015, for treating the period between 13.6.2013
to 17.6.2014 as 'dies-non' has been rejected on the principle of 'no work no
pay'.
3. Counsel for the respondents states that the respondents have also taken
a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present
petition in the Delhi High Court on the ground that the entire cause of action
has occurred at Durgapur, Kolkata and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the
impugned order dated 3.6.2015, then he ought to have approached the High
Court at Kolkata. He further states that the services of the petitioner were
terminated by the DIG at the CISF Unit, Durgapur, Kolkata and his
representation was disposed of by the IG, Kolkata, which is a clear indicator
towards the fact that he ought not to have approached this Court for filing the
present petition as no part of the actionable cause of action has arisen in
Delhi.
4. Counsel for the petitioner opposes the aforesaid submission and
asserts that this Court is vested with the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the
present petition on the ground that the petitioner had submitted a
representation dated 13.4.2015 to the Director General, CISF, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi that has remained pending.
5. The aforesaid submission is not borne out by the observations made in
the impugned order dated 3.6.2015, wherein the issue raised by the petitioner
in his representation dated 13.4.2015 has been considered and decided. In
fact, a reference of the petitioner's representation dated 13.4.2015 finds
specific mention in para 4 of the impugned order. In such circumstances, we
are of the opinion that no part of the actionable cause of action has arisen in
Delhi for the petitioner to file the present petition in this Court.
6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of, with liberty granted to
the petitioner to approach the appropriate court vested with territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the same. While disposing of the present petition, it
is clarified that we have not made any observations on the merits of the case,
which shall be considered by the competent court in accordance with law.
7. The present petition is disposed of, along with the pending application.
HIMA KOHLI, J
V.P. VAISH, J
FEBRUARY 26, 2016
sk/rkb
