Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had served in the State of Bihar as Sub-Inspector and he retired on 29th February, 2004 from the State of Bihar, especially from Patna Special Branch, Bihar and now, the petitioner is staying within the State of Jharkhand and he wants pension from the Treasury Office of Lohardaga. State of Jharkhand and therefore, the present petition has been preferred.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that necessary information have already been given by the Accountant General Office, State of Bihar to the Accountant General, State of Jharkhand, so as to make the payment of the pension, from the State of Jharkhand.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition, looking to Sub-Article (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as no cause of action, much less, any part of the action has been arisen; within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, looking to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in (1994)4 SCC 710, (1994)4 SCC 711, (2007)5 SCC 336, when no cause of action has been arisen, within the State of Jharkhand, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents State that the petitioner has served for the whole life, within the State of Bihar, even after bifurcation of the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand, the petitioner continues to be an employee of the State of :Bihar and retired as Sub-Inspector on 29th February, 2004 from the State of Bihar and hence, this Court may not entertain the writ petition, preferred by the present petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents-State that locus of a person is not to be seen, at all. A person may move from Jammu-Kashmir to Kanyakumari, but, what has to be seen under Sub-Article (2) of Article 226 of the, Constitution of India, is cause of action. If any part of the action is arisen over here, then only this Court can entertain this writ petition and in view of the aforesaid decisions and also looking to Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for respondent no. 2, who has also submitted that as no cause of action or part of any action has arisen, within the territorial limits of this Court, this petition may not be entertained by this Court. Prior to bifurcation of the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhahd, the petitioner was serving at Patna or at State of Bihar and even after, the bifurcation, the petitioner continues his services with the State of Bihar and retired from the State of Bihar on 29th February, 2004. Thus, so far as the payment of pension etc are concerned, this writ petition may not be entertained and the petitioner is not remedyless. He can approach before appropriate Court for his grievances.

5. In view of the above decisions as well as the decision rendered by this Court dated 8th May, 2009 in W.P.(S) No. 7394 of 2006*, which has also taken this Court to the meaning of word 'Cause of Action' as bundle of the facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court.

6. The expression "cause of action" means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. It means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court. Negatively, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. For every action there has• to be a• cause of ac