Retired employee can file case at place where he belongs: Supreme Court sets aside Patna HC order denying pension claim for lack of jurisdiction

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a retired employee who is receiving pension cannot be asked to go to another court to file a case when he has a cause of action at the place where he resides (Shanti Devi alias Shanti Mishra v. Union of India)..The Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah passed the judgment in a matter involving the pension of an employee of Coal India Limited, who was working in West Bengal. .The now deceased employee did not opt for a 1998 pension scheme, but re-opted for pension in 2002, when certain amendments to the rules were made.After the employee retired 2005, he filed a plea before the Patna High Court in 2006 praying for refund of a wrongly withheld amount of Rs.1,33,559. However, the High Court dismissed the plea stating it lacks territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, the employee approached Jharkhand High Court, where the matter is still pending..Later in 2013, Coal India informed the employee that his pension was being stopped and he was also directed to return the amount of over Rs 8 lakh accrued over the eight years since his retirement..Challenging this decision, the employee approached the Patna High Court in 2014. However, the High Court dismissed his plea on the ground that this petition was similar to the 2006 petition which was junked due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. When a plea before Jharkhand High Court was pending, the employee should have approached the same Court for relief, the High Court ruled. This order was upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court, prompting the employee to approach the Supreme Court in appeal..Citing its 2004 verdict in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr, the Apex Court stated that "even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter.".The Court noted that the causes of action in the petitions filed in 2006 and 2014 were totally different. Thus, the judgment reads,"When the earlier writ petition was filed, there was no issue of non-payment of pension or stoppage of pension since the pension had been started w.e.f. May, 2005. The subsequent Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 was filed when payment of pension after 08 years was stopped and the petitioner was directed to return the amount of Rs.8,09,268/-. The cause of action for filing Writ Petition No.5999 of 2014 was entirely different.The learned Single Judge committed error in holding that in view of dismissal of the earlier writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the Writ Petition is also dismissed.".The Bench thus noted that it was not necessary for the retired employee, who is settled in Darbhanga, to file his petition in the Jharkhand High Court, where his earlier writ petition was pending/.Substantiating how the cause of action arose in Patna, the Court stated that the stoppage of pension affected the employee at his native place, and thus he being deprived of the benefit of pension which he was receiving from his employer. The verdict reads,"Mishra had opted for receiving his pension in State Bank of India, Darbhanga, State of Bihar, which was his native place, from where he was drawing his pension regularly for the last 08 years, stoppage of pension gave a cause of action, which arose at the place where the petitioner was continuously receiving the pension.".Moreover, it was held,."A retired employee, who is receiving pension, cannot be asked to go to another court to file the writ petition, when he has a cause of action for filing a writ petition in Patna High Court. For a retired employee convenience is to prosecute his case at the place where he belonged to and was getting pension."Supreme Court.Thus, the orders of the High Court were set aside, and the writ petition filed by the employee stands revived..The Court has also directed the authorities to pay provisional pension to the wife of the deceased petitioner from December 2020, during the pendency of the writ petition and subject to a final decision..[Read judgment]