The cause of action for maintaining a writ application must arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, and a claim for disability pension can be waived by continued service after the injury.

Mihir Kr.Jha, J.

1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 12.9.2007 passed in CWJC No. 5633 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the appellant/writ petitioner for grant of disability pension in terms of Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules has been rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that this Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain such writ application, directed against an order dated 10th November, 2005 passed by the Colonel Assam Rifles in the Office of Directorate General of Assam Rifles, Shillong refusing grant of such disability pension.

2. Facts giving rise to this writ application lies in a very narrow compass. The appellant/writ petitioner was enrolled as a recruit on general duty in Assam Rifles on 11.5.1989 and after completion of his recruit training was posted to 4 Assam Rifles. On 13th August, 1991 while on convoy duty, the appellant/writ petitioner sustained gun shot injuries in an ambush at general area Gomnom, Ukhrul District, Manipur at a point of time he had completed only two years, three months and two days of his service. Followed by the injury, the appellant/writ petitioner was placed in medical category by the medical officer and when the unit was deployed at Tuensang Nagaland the appellant/writ petitioner on compassionate grounds was kept at the Rear which was in Jorhat to ensure his periodical access to medical facilities at 5 Air Force Hospital, Jorhat. Further on turnover when the unit was scheduled to move from Tuensang, Nagaland to Mantripukhri, Manipur in January 2004, the appellant/writ petitioner approached the authority for invalidation out of service with invalid pension. His such request was allowed and accordingly, after rendering 14 years, 8 months and 15 days of qualifying service the appellant/writ petitioner was invalided out of service on 1st December, 2004. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant/writ petitioner was boarded out on invalid pension @ 1,913/- per month with effect from 1st of December, 2004 and his entire dues by way post retirement benefit were paid.

3. The appellant/writ petitioner, being a permanent resident of village Pithauri Tawakal Tola in the district of Saran of this State had thereafter settled at his permanent native place and it is his case in paragraph no. 14 of the writ application that for the first time, he had raised his claim for payment of disability pension in the month of May, 2005 which was followed by his representation dated 17.10.2005 to various authorities including the Home Minister of the Government of India. The impugned order rejecting such claim for grant of disability pension was thereafter passed by the Colonel (Recruit) of the Office of Directorate General of Assam Rifles, Shillong on 10.11.2005 which was communicated to the appellant/writ petitioner at his permanent village home address at Pithauri Tawakal Tola in the district of Saran. It was this impugned order dated 10.11.2005 which was sought to be assailed in the writ application CWJC No. 5633 of 2006 filed in this Court on 1.5.2006 which as noted above came to be dismissed by the impugned order on the ground of this Court lacking territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ application of the appellant/writ petitioner.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner had raised a short but very attractive submission. He had contended that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court suffers from both factual and legal error inasmuch as the impugned order dated 10.11.2005 denying the appellant/writ petitioner of being granted disability pension came to be passed after he had been invalidated out of service on 1.12.2004 and the same was communicated to him at his native village which was admittedly within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, treating the communication of rejection of the req