High Court jurisdiction under Article 226(2) arises if even fraction of cause of action, like receipt of impugned order at residence within territory, occurs therein. No laches where authorities delay response to representation. (28 words)

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against judgment dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 5831 of 2022, whereby the order dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure P-17) was quashed and directions were issued that the present appellant would be at liberty to take a fresh decision in this regard strictly in accordance with law regarding the issue of financial upgradation, and whether it is permissible or not. Apart from that, the learned Single Judge was also prima facie of the opinion that the person under deputation was also entitled to the said benefits and the withdrawal as such of the higher grade pay, was not justified.

2. The learned Single Judge was primarily of the view that the order dated 28.01.2022 did not contain any valid reasons and therefore has relied upon the constitutional Bench judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others , (1978) 1 SCC 405, that statutory functionary must make an order by giving valid grounds as such and it cannot be supplemented by filing a reply in the subsequent proceedings.

3. The counsel for the appellant had submitted that a preliminary objection had been taken regarding the issue of jurisdiction that the Courts at Delhi would have the jurisdiction, keeping in view the fact that the employee had been appointed on deputation with the appellant on 03.03.2014 and assumed charge on 30.05.2014 and thereafter superannuated on 03.04.2016 from Delhi. It is thus, contended that merely because of representation dated 15.02.2018 had been given, which had been declined by the order dated 28.01.2022, the said order would not give jurisdiction merely because the order was received by the employee at his residence at District Hamirpur, since a copy has been addressed to him by the present appellant.

4. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of Indian and another, (2004) 6 SCC 254, to contend that cause of action has to arise as such in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and therefore, merely on the residence or location of a person affected by the order, the jurisdiction could not be conferred. He also argued that an audit objection had been raised on 06.04.2016 and merely by filing the representation on 15.02.2018, the limitation as such could not be extended and thus the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on account of delay and laches.

5. To counter the said argument counsel for the employee as such has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Nawal Kishor Sharma vs. Union of India and others, AIR 2014 SC 3607, to contend that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, it would be a determinative factor which the High Court would have to decide on merits. He also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by one of us (Justice G.S. Sandhawalia) in Harbhajan Singh vs. Union of India and others , 2019:PHHC:140941, decided on 27.11.2019 while sitting singly in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, wherein Nawal Kishor Sharma’s case (supra) had also been taken into consideration while dismissing the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, which was a service dispute and the employee as such had joined to serve in the Indo-Tibetian Border and had been posted at New Delhi, where the cause of action had arisen and wherein even Kusum Ingots case (supra) had also been taken into consideration,

6. In Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra , (2000) 7