JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 28.3.2014 passed by Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit, MTPS, Mejia (West Bengal).

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was an employee of CISF and he has been compulsorily retired and thereafter, he is residing in Gwalior, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, the place of residence would give rise to a part of cause of action because the petitioner is suffering the consequence of rejection of his claim for grant of second MACP. If the second MACP is granted to the petitioner, then it will have an impact on the amount of pension, which the petitioner is losing and as a consequence of the impugned order is being faced by the petitioner at Gwalior, therefore, this Court has a territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition.

4. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the place of residence cannot be said to be a part of cause of action. Although the petitioner was an employee of CISF, but by the impugned order his services were not terminated and he was merely denied second MACP. It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 15722 (W) of 2014 and the said writ petition was decided by order dated 9.6.2014 and since the representation of the petitioner was pending, therefore, the respondents authorities were directed to ensure that the petitioner's case is duly considered after July, 2014 when the petitioner becomes eligible for second MACP.

5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit, MTPS, Mejia (West Bengal) has rejected the claim of the petitioner for second MACP by order dated 28.3.2014 and District Bankura (West Bengal) is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and since the cause of action has arisen in West Bengal, therefore, the petitioner must challenge the impugned order by filing a petition before the High Court of Calcutta.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. The preliminary contention of the petitioner is that since he was an employee of CISF, therefore, he can challenge the impugned order before the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the petitioner is residing, whereas it is the contention of the counsel for the respondents that by the impugned order since the services of the petitioner were not terminated, therefore, he has to challenge the order before the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the cause of action had arisen.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shrikishan Yadav v. Commandant, Central Reserve Police Force and others reported in 2004 (1) MPLJ 205 has held as under:-

“21. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that law laid down in the case of Dinesh Chandra Gahtori (supra) though rendered in regard to Chief of Army Staff it shall be applicable to the Director General of CRPF, which comes within the expression of armed forces of the Union. Thus, on this foundation, we have no hesitation in holding that the writ petition before this Court is maintainable.”

The Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Chandra Gahtori vs. Chief of Army Staff and another reported in (2001) 9 SCC 525 has held as under:-

“3. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court at Allahabad to quash a communication sent to his wife which stated that the appellant had been tried by a Summary Court Martial and had been found guilty of using criminal force against his superior officer and awarded the sentence of dismissal from service. The High Court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage by holding:

“In view of the fact