( 1 ) IN pursuance of a show cause notice against admission, the respondents put in appearance and on the authority of Kanti Prasad v. J. N. K. V. Vidyalaya AIR 1971 Madh Pra 15, raised a preliminary abjection (I. A. No. 2484/86) about maintainability of the petition at Gwalior. The abjection was first heard by me and brother Rampal Singh, J. in a Division Bench, but instead of deciding it ourselves in a Division Bench, we considered it proper to have the objection decided by a larger Bench in view of its importance and far reaching effect. Accordingly we made a recommendation to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for resolving the objection. This is how this Full Bench has been constituted.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is an Assistant Professor in the Agriculture College, Gwalior run by the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, (for short, "the University" ). He is aggrieved by his pay fixation and seeks a direction to the University for fixation of his pay"in the scale of Rs. 700-1600 by giving him five increments over the pay which he was drawing in his earlier place of posting. "

( 3 ) THE respondents say that the petition is not maintainable at Gwalior, because as per the Presidential Order dated 28-11-1968 issued under S. 51 (2), States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the Gwalior Bench has jurisdiction and power only in respect of the cases arising in the Revenue Districts of Gwalior, Shivpuri, Datia, Guna, Vidisha, Bhind and Morena and because neither the impugned order of the University was passed at Gwalior, nor any part of the cause of action could be said to have arisen in any of the Revenue Districts falling within the jurisdiction of Gwalior Bench of the High Court. Reliance is placed in Kanti Prasad, (AIR 1971 Madh Pra 15) (supra ).

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner cited Gurdit Singh v. Munsha Singh, (1977) 1 SCC 791 in order to show what the term 'cause of action' means and submitted that the wrong fixation of his pay by the impugned order (Annexure P-2) adversely affected the petitioner while posted at Gwalior and, therefore, a part of cause of action arose at Gwalior and the Gwalior Bench, as such, has jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition. He placed reliance in W. W. Joshi v. State of Bombay, AIR 1959 Bom 363; Damamal v. Union of India, AIR 1967 Bom 355; P. S. Rao v. Union of India, AIR 1974 Mys 39; D. L. Suresh v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, AIR 1983 Kar 43 and Nasiruddin v. S. T. A. Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331 besides relying on the provisions of Art. 226 (2) of the Constitution.

( 5 ) SHRI P. L. Dubey, a senior Advocate sought permission of the Court and made his submissions, supporting the contention of Shri R. D. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Gwalior Bench had jurisdiction to hear and decide the present petition. Sarvashri P. N. Gupta, C. P. Singh, Madhukar Rao and Arun Mishra, Advocates also intervened in support of the contentions of Shri R. D. Jain.

( 6 ) IN Kanti Prasad, (AIR 1971 Madh Pra 15) (supra), the petitioner was an employee of the University posted at Gwalior. His grievance was about non-consideration of his case for promotion by the University. On a similar objection about maintainability of the petition at Gwalior, it was held : "from the petition it is Clear that nothing happened within the Gwalior District which could be said to have furnished a cause of action to the petitioner. The University is located at Jabalpur and the actions of the University by which the petitioner is aggrieved including the interview held at Jabalpur. The mere fact that the petitioner happens to be posted at Gwalior is of no consequence. Thus this case cannot be said to have arisen in the Revenue District of Gwalior, within the meaning of the aforesaid order of the President. " (Para 4)the petitioner in the present petition is also an employee of the University posted at Gwalior. His grievance is about non-fixation