Honble BALIA, J.–These two cases have been referred by the learned Single Judge to decide the issue about the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain petition under Article 226 or 227 of Constitution, for raising grievance of non payment of pension to the retired personnel of Indian Armed Forces which is payable in the State of Rajasthan either under option exercised by the retired personnel or because he is entitled to receive pension at the place where incumbent desired to settle after retirement.

(2). Learned Single Judge was of the view whether in such case where a person has retired from a different State but resides and receives pension in that State, the latter State had the territorial jurisdiction, there are conflicting views of this Court, hence he referred the question as to jurisdiction to Larger Bench.

(3). In the present case the petitioner was appointed as Rifleman in Rajasthan in Rajasthan Rifles on 11th Dec. 57. He was discharged from respondent establishment. It is not even the case of respondent that the petitioner retired from any place out side State of Rajasthan. There is no dispute that if the petitioner is successful in his claim to pension, such pension shall be payable to him in Rajasthan.

(4). The learned Single Judge has primarily referred the case on the question of territorial jurisdiction on the ground that where the respondents authorities are not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition cannot be entertained and in raising this issue a large number of decisions of this Court against Union of India in respect of ex-army personnel have been referred to by the learned Single Judge. The learned Judge has referred to some of the earlier decisions to which we shall presently advert to for culling out the principle that a case where the respondents authorities are not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition cannot be entertained. On the other hand, the learned Judge has also referred to a Bench decision of this Court in Balu Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (1), wherein a Division Bench has opined that in cases of denial of pension to army personnels this Court has a jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition, even though the pension is to be released by the respondents outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, if it is to be received in Rajasthan.

(5). The only criterion with which the order under reference appears to have been influenced viz. the existence of respondent authorities, against whom a writ is sought, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is only one of the criteria which determines the territorial jurisdiction of this Court but is not the sole criterion. Under Article 226, when the Constitution came into force for the first time, conferred jurisdiction on the High Court of a State to issue to any person or authority including in appropriate cases in the Govt. `within those territories directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant to and certiorari or any of them for the enforcement of the right of any of the party or for any other purpose. The power to issue writs only to the authorities or the Govt. within the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction resulted in a position where any authority issuing order whose office was situated beyond the territory of a State and beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court could not be proceeded in the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the cause of action arose or the effect of impugned action or inaction fell. In all cases against Union of India, therefore, the various High Courts of the States were held to have no jurisdiction unless the authority issuing the orders was situate within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. A petition challenging the Central enactment could be filed only in the Punjab High Court but later on in Delhi High Court, which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document