##PAGE1##

1

O.A. No. 050/00841/2025

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

PATNA BENCH, PATNA

O.A. No. 050/00841/2025

Date of order:-22.12.2025

C O R A M

HON’BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER [A]

Pintu Kumar, Male aged about 27 yars, S/o Devnarayan Tanti,

Resident of Village Bikarampur, P.O. and P.S. Asarganj, District

Munger, Bihar.

………Applicant

Versus

Patna

Bench 1. The Union of India, through its the Chairman, Railway

Recruitment Cell, Western Railway, Parcel Department,

POOJA Digitally AlibhaiPremji Road (Grant Road) East Mumbai 4oooo7.

KUMA signed by

POOJA

RI KUMARI 2. The Chairman, Railways Recruitment Cell, Western Railway,

Parcel Deppot, AlibhaiPremJi Road (Grant Road) EastMumbai-

400007.

3. The General Manager, Western Railway, Mumbai Central,

AlibhaiPremji Road (Grant Road) East Mumbai- 400007.

4. The Divisional Railway Manager, Railways Recruitment Cell,

Western Railway, Parcel Deppot, AlibhaiPremJi Road (Grant

Road) East Mumbai-400007.

5. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Personnel Department,

GLO Building, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020.

……..Respondents

For Applicant:- Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate

For Respondents:- Mr.A.K. Mantu, ld. ASC

2

O.A. No. 050/00841/2025

O R D E R (Oral)

1. Heard ld. counsel for the parties.

2. Learned Counsel for the applicant has prayed for issuance of

'Notice'.

3. Ld. counsel for the respondents has objected to the said

prayer on the grounds that the territorial jurisdiction of this

Bench is not there to adjudicate this issue.

4. The matter relates to appointment under Centralized

Patna Employment Notice (CEN) No. RRC-01/2019. As per

Bench

paragraph no. 20.4 of this CEN it is clearly stated that any

POOJA Digitally

KUMA signed by legal disputes that arises out of this notice will be subject

POOJA

RI KUMARI

matter of adjudication of the Bench of Central

Administrative Tribunal where this RRC is located. This

RRC is clearly located in Mumbai and hence, this Tribunal

does not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this issue.

5. For the sake of clarity Rule-6 of CAT Procedure Rule, 1987

which deals with the Place of Filing Applications, is being

reproduced as under:

“Rule-6:Place of filing application.-(1) An application shall

ordinarily be filed byan applicant with the Registrar of the

Bench within whose jurisdiction

(i) the applicant is posted for the time being,

or (ii) the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen:

3

O.A. No. 050/00841/2025

Provided that with the leave of the Chairman the application

may be filed with the Registrar of the Principal Bench and

subject to the orders under Section 25, such application shall

be heard and disposed of by the Bench which has jurisdiction

over the matter.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1)

persons who have ceased to be in service by reason of

retirement, dismissal or termination of service may at his

Patna option file an application with the Registrar of the Bench

Bench

within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing

POOJA Digitally

KUMA signed by at the time of filing of the an application.”

POOJA

RI KUMARI

It is also being observed that not even a fraction or part

of cause of action lies within the territorial jurisdiction of this

Bench. Moreover, the same CEN referred above in its para 4

has made the citizen of Nepal and subjects of Bhutan eligible

to apply for the job. Their address for communication may be

somewhere in Nepal/Bhutan. So, any correspondence with

them including such rejection will be done at the

Nepal/Bhutan address. This is clear that mere

correspondence on the home address will not give rise to any

reason for the applicant to plead that a part of cause of action

is there at his home address. The rejection order has been

issued at Mumbai that is the cause of action.

4

O.A. No. 050/00841/2025

6. As this matter is put up before this Bench for considering the

prayer for issuance of notice, I find no reason to continue

with this issue as the remedy lies with Mumbai Bench of

CAT with territorial jurisdiction. Hence, the O.A. is

dismissed in limine for wa