Dismissed

P.Balarajan Nambiar v. Union of India

Kerala HC21 Mar 2017WA/345/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition concerning grade fixation was dismissed on preliminary grounds. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction, which was insufficient even if raised for the first time in appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed as the writ petition was not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.

P.Balarajan Nambiar Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/30TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶7

WA. NO.345 OF 2017 () IN WP(C).12252/2012

¶8

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14-11-2016 IN WP(C) NO.12252/2012.)

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶10

P.BALARAJAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT EDATHUMPOYIL HOUSE, P.O.CHERUVANNUR, (VIA) MEPPAYYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673524.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.C.VATHSALAN

¶12

SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF POWER, SHRAM SAKTHI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001.

¶15

TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., A-10, KRIBHCE BHAVAN, SECTOR-1, NOIDA, UTTARPRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN-201301.WITH PRESENT ADDRESS GANGA BHAVAN, PRAGATIPURAM, BYEPASS ROAD, RISHIKESH, LITTARKHAND, PIN-249201.

¶16

DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL), TEHI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, A-10, KRIBHCE BHAVAN, SECTOR-1, NOIDA, UTTARPRADESH, PIN-201301.

¶17

GENERAL MANAGER (P&AO, TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, A-10, KRIBHCE BHAVAN,SECTOR-1,NOIDA,UTTARPRADESH, PIN-201301.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R2 TO R4 BY SRI.ROY CHACKO

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, C.J. &

¶21

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶22

¶23

W.A. No.345 of 2017

¶24

- - - - Dated this the 21^st day of March, 2017

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.

¶27

This appeal is against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 14.11.2016 passed in W.P(C) No.12252 of 2012 whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

¶28

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and with their consent, we dispose of this appeal at this stage itself.

¶29

The appellant/writ petitioner was in the Central Reserve Police Force. He was subsequently deputed to Indo Tibetan Border Force in 1975. While working as such in 1993, he was deputed to the 2^nd respondent i.e., Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd., then in the State of Uttar Pradesh now Uttarakhand. In 1997, he was permanently absorbed by the 2^nd respondent.

¶30

The grievance of the appellant before the learned single Judge was that upon his deputation to the 2^nd respondent, he should

¶31

WA.345/17

¶32

-:2:-

¶33

have been put in Supervisor Grade-3 instead of Supervisor Grade-2, which was the case with two other similar deputationists. He continued in service of the 2^nd respondent and subsequently, superannuated on 30.6.2002. At this juncture, while his pensionary benefits were being finalised, he made a representation in regard to his wrong placement at the time of his deputation, which was made in the year 1993. It was rejected by the Central Government at New Delhi. The writ petition then came to be filed in the year 2012 challenging the wrong fixation of his grade on his deputation in the year 1993, as done by the 2^nd respondent.

¶34

The learned single Judge, before whom the case was argued, was of the view, upon the stand taken by the 2^nd respondent, that the two persons with whom the appellant was seeking parity, were wrongly granted that grade. The learned single Judge, thus found no merit in the writ petition and it was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

¶35

Learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent has taken a preliminary objection to the very maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. The appellant was working in the Indo

¶36

WA.345/17

¶37

-:3:-

¶38

Tibetan Border Force outside the jurisdiction of this Court. He was sent on deputation to the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd., in the State of Uttar Pradesh, now Uttarakhand. He superannuated there and his ultimate grievance was rejected by the Government of India at New Delhi. Thus, no part of cause of action arose within the territory of this State.

¶39

In our view, question of jurisdiction or lack of it can be raised even first time in appeal. This cannot be disputed. Thus, we take notice of this objection. We are of the view that the cause that brings a person to the Court must be a cause within the jurisdiction of the Court. Secondly, a litigant must be vigilant about his rights in moving for his redressal. Hence, on both these counts, the writ petition ought not to have been entertained.

¶40

So far as the jurisdiction is concerned, neither his deputation nor his absorption nor denial of what he claimed his entitlement was made within the jurisdiction of this Court by any authority. Undisputedly, all this was done in the State of Uttar Pradesh now Uttarakhand. His appeal was dismissed by the Central Government at New Delhi. That being so, in our view, no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶41

-:4:-

¶42

WA.345/17

¶43

On the issue of jurisdiction itself, we find that the writ

¶44

petition was not maintainable. Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed.

¶45

Sd/Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice

¶46

Sd/Antony Dominic, Judge

¶47

krj.21/3

P.Balarajan Nambiar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Balarajan Nambiar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun K. Vs State of Kerala

K J Vasudevan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Vs Secretary to Government