High Court's jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 is contingent upon the presence of a cause of action within its territorial limits, as clarified by recent rulings.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing Respondents No. 1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as `the official Respondents') to promote the Petitioner to the post of Chief Manager (E&M) in E-7 Grade, retrospectively, with effect from 01.04.2013, the date when his juniors were promoted, with consequential benefits such as restoration of seniority, arrears of pay, etc., from the said date.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that he joined Respondent No. 1 on 16.12.1987 and at the time of filing the present writ petition, on 18.08.2017, he was working as Senior Manager (E&M) at Delhi, on deputation. A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened on 07.03.2013 to consider promotion of executives from E-6 to E-7 Grade and Petitioner was duly recommended for promotion. However, his promotion order was not issued due to lack of Vigilance/Departmental/Security Clearance.

3. As per the Petitioner, a large number of executives junior to him in E-6 Grade, including Respondents No. 5 to 19 herein, were promoted, as their promotion orders were issued, without any delay, between 01.04.2013 and 16.04.2013. Aggrieved by the non-issuance of his promotion order, despite recommendations of the DPC and adequate vacancies, Petitioner made several representations to Respondent No.1 on 23.12.2013, 27.06.2014 and 01.09.2016.

4. For the first time, responding to the representations of the Petitioner, Respondent No. 1, vide letter dated 03.05.2016, informed him that his promotion order could not be issued for want of requisite vigilance clearance. Several representations were made thereafter by the petitioner between 06.02.2017 to 24.05.2017, seeking promotion with notional seniority w.e.f. 01.04.2013, but to no avail.

5. Finally, Petitioner was promoted to E-7 Grade, vide promotion order dated 26.05.2017, but without notional seniority, leading to a representation dated 21.07.2017 for restoration of his seniority from 01.04.2013. Being unsuccessful in getting any relief from the official Respondents, Petitioner approached this Court.

6. Mr. Satyajit Sarna, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that once the Petitioner was duly recommended for promotion by the DPC held on 07.03.2013, subject to vigilance clearance, mere lapse or delay on the part of the official Respondents in obtaining the requisite clearance, should not put the Petitioner to a disadvantage. Inaction on the part of the official Respondents has resulted in delayed promotion and loss of seniority, adversely affecting the career prospects of the Petitioner and juniors stealing a march over him.

7. Learned counsel submitted that the Supreme Court affirmed the principle of retrospective promotion and held that executives should not be made to suffer due to administrative lapses, in the case of P.N. Premachandran vs. State of Kerala, (2004) 1 SCC 245. Reliance was also placed on the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in Satish Kumar Khetarpal vs. Director General CISF, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7491, wherein the Court held that in case of unjustified delay in granting promotions for reasons not attributable to the employee, promotion ought to be given a retrospective effect.

8. Official Respondents opposed the writ petition raising several grounds on merits and also twofold preliminary objections viz.; (a) lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present petition and (b) petition suffers from delay and laches.

9. Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, learned counsel for the official Respondents, at the outset, vehemently contended that this Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition as no part of the cause of action has arisen within its territorial limits. Entire case of the Petitioner hinges on non-promotion despite recommendation of the DPC held on 07.03.2013. The said DPC was held at the Headquarters of Respondent No. 1 at Kolkata, promotion orders of juniors wer