1. Writ petition by pensioners association seeking pension benefits; maintainability disputed. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58978
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R. Ravi, J
Airports Authority Of India Pensioners Forum – Appellant
Versus
Airports Authority of India – Respondent
WP(C) 21852/2024
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Sethunath, V.R. Manorajan, Thomas Abraham, Sreganesh U., Lakshminarayan R., Gautham Krishnan K.G., Sneha Mary Santhosh
For the Respondents: V. Santharam, Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, C. Dinesh, N.S. Daya Sindhu, Sree Hari
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Sethunath, V.R. Manorajan, Thomas Abraham, Sreganesh U., Lakshminarayan R., Gautham Krishnan K.G., Sneha Mary Santhosh
For the Respondents: V. Santharam, Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, C. Dinesh, N.S. Daya Sindhu, Sree Hari
An association lacks locus standi to file a writ petition under Article 226 seeking service benefits for its members; territorial jurisdiction is not conferred merely because the association is based in Kerala when the cause of action arose elsewhere.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Territorial jurisdiction - Locus standi - Service matters - Maintainability of writ petition by an association - CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 69.
(B) Territorial jurisdiction - A writ petition can be entertained only if the cause of action arises wholly or in part within the territorial limits of the High Court - Mere fact that the petitioner association has its address in Kerala or that the respondent authorities exercise jurisdiction over the entire country does not confer jurisdiction on the High Court of Kerala when the members worked and retired outside Kerala - Communication of an order within the jurisdiction is not sufficient to constitute a part of the cause of action (Paras 5-9).
(C) Locus standi - Generally, a person must be personally aggrieved to maintain a writ petition; an association cannot espouse the cause of its members relating to service benefits unless the members themselves are unable to approach the court by reason of poverty, disability or economically disadvantaged position - In service matters, an association has no locus standi to claim benefits for its members - Exception for public interest litigation does not apply to service matters (Paras 10-14).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Pensioners Forum represented by its President, filed a writ petition seeking directions to the respondents for grant of government pension and provisional pension to its members. The members hailed from different States across India, had worked outside Kerala, and retired from other States. The first respondent raised preliminary objections that the writ petition was not maintainable for lack of locus standi and territorial jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction as no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of Kerala. The court further held that the petitioner association had no locus standi to file a writ petition on behalf of its members seeking service benefits such as pension. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner were distinguished as not dealing with the specific issues of locus standi or territorial jurisdiction in service matters.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner association has locus standi to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 seeking service benefits for its members? 2. Whether the High Court of Kerala has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition when the members are from outside Kerala and the cause of action arose elsewhere?
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that an association cannot espouse the grievance of its members with regard to their service benefits, as the individual members must personally approach the court. Territorial jurisdiction is determined by where the cause of action arises; the location of the forum's address or the all-India jurisdiction of respondents does not confer jurisdiction on a High Court outside the area where the relevant facts occurred.
Result: Writ petition dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable at the instance of the Association and also on the ground that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Respondents argued no locus standi and no territorial jurisdiction; petitioner argued maintainable. (Para 4 )
3. Does the High Court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when the cause of action arises entirely outside its territorial limits?
No, the High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction if the cause of action arises wholly outside, even if the petitioner resides within the jurisdiction. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. Can an association maintain a writ petition for service benefits of its members?
No, an association generally cannot maintain a writ petition for service benefits of its members, unless exceptional circumstances exist. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
JUDGMENT
The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers.
i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriatewrit, order or direction to Respondent No.1, Airports Authority of India, to take necessary steps including the release of capitalization amount for the issuance of Pension Payment Order to facilitate immediate payment of Government Pension to the Petitioners and payment of provisional Pension as contemplated under Rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules,1972, till Pension is granted.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No.2, EPFO, Ministry of Labor and Employment to issue necessary orders for stopping the EPF pension payment and communicate the same to all others concerned;
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No.3, Union of India, to pass necessary orders for the grant of provisional Pension till regular Pension is sanctioned;
iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No. 4, Director General of Civil Aviation to take all necessary steps to make immediate payment of Government Pension to the petitioners;
v) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No.5, DoP & PW to work out the arrears of payment due and payable to the petitioners and make lump sum payment of the same after adjusting the payments, if any, made under the EPS Scheme;
vi) pass such further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case as in the interest of justice.’’
2. The petitioner is a Pensioners Forum represented by its President. In paragraph 1 of the writ petition, it is stated that the members of the petitioner Forum hail from different States across India and there are hundreds of similarly placed petitioners across the nation. In paragraph 21, details of 15 members of the petitioner Forum who hail from different States have been mentioned. A preliminary objection has been raised in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent that the writ petition is not maintainable. It is stated that the petition has been filed by the Forum as a public interest litigation and since it is a service matter, no such writ petition is permissible. It is stated that the individual members, if they have got a grievance, should have raised it before the appropriate statutory authority seeking CCS pension and since the grievance is not of the Forum, the writ petition as filed, is not maintainable. It is also pointed out that none of the aggrieved persons have been joined as petitioners in the writ petition. Another contention taken is that the writ petition is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction, since members of the Forum are admittedly from outside Kerala and they have worked and retired in other States and no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Arguments were addressed on the maintainability. Counsel for the 1st respondent relied on the decisions in Vinoy Kumar v. State of UP & Ors. [(2001) 4 SCC 734], Tancem Marketing Employees' Welfare Union v. Secretary to Government & Ors. [(2019) SCC OnLine. Madras 26944], Viswa Hindu Pareeshath Vibhag Karyalayam v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC Online 1556], Swakshtagrahi Sangh, Janpad Panchayat Niwas v. Union of India & Ors. [2022 (2) MPLJ 526], Paradip Port Trust Officer Pensioners' Association v. Union of India & Ors. [2024 SCC OnLine Orissa 2609], State of Kerala & Anr. v. Kerala Government Veterinary Officers Association & Ors. [OP KAT No. 316 of 2024], Kerala State Government Ayurveda Medical Officers Association & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. [OP(KAT) No.447 of 2024] and All India BSNL Pensioners' Welfare Association & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [OP(CAT) No. 60 of 2020] to contend that the petitioner has no locus standi to prefer a writ petition. The counsel also relied on the decisions in Oil and Natural Gas
