Honble VYAS, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to provide all terminal benefits to the petitioner including pension, gratuity, etc. after granting revision of pay scale revised from time to time with all consequential benefits forthwith alongwith simple interest at the rate of 12% upon retiral benefits.

(2). Learned counsel for the respondents, at the initial stage, raised serious preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on account of the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of the High Court at Jodhpur. Therefore, I deem it just and proper to first decide the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur.

(3). The contention has been raised by learned counsel for the respondents that although the petitioner was employee of the University but, till his retirement from service, being an employee of the Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, he was working in the office of the Zonal Director of Research, Agricultural Research Station, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar and the said Research Station being under the control of Director, Agricultural Research Station, Fatehpur Shekhawati (District Sikar), therefore being employee of the Research Station, Fatehpur Shekhawati, in view of the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association vs. Union of India & Others, reported in (2001) 2 SCC 294, the Principal Seat of the High Court at Jodhpur has no jurisdiction to hear this writ petition because district Sikar in which the petitioner was working till his retirement falls under the jurisdiction of the Jaipur Bench of this High Court.

(4). Learned counsel for the respondents invited my attention towards another judgment of this Court dated 26.7.2006, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5670/2005, Mahendra Kumar Verma & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed while holding that no cause of action or its part arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of the High Court and the learned Single Judge, while observing as above, dismissed the writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction.

(5). Yet another judgment reported in 2005(10) RDD 4670 (Raj.), Anand Bardwa & Others vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation & Others, has been referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contention. Therein, too, the same question was involved, therefore, the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition on the basis of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

(6). With a view to examining the preliminary objections, the factual matrix in the case may be considered. It is the admitted position of the case that the petitioner Banna Ram is retired employee of the Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner and he was working at the Agricultural Research Station, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar under the control of the Director of Research, Agricultural Research Station, Fatehpur Shekhawati (District Sikar); meaning thereby, the pension sanctioning authority is the Registrar, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner. Thus the employers office is situated at Bikaner and Bikaner district is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of the High Court at Jodhpur.

(7). In the judgment rendered by the Honble apex Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association (supra), the expression "cause of action" has been adjudicated in para 17 and 18 as follows:

"The expression "cause of action" has acquired a judicially-settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, includ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document