IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR K.M.Kabir, CT/GD No.914521346, CISF Unit, VSP, Visakapattinam, Andra Pradesh.

..Petitioner Vs

1. The Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, 8th Reserve Battalion, Kishtwar, Jammu and Kashmir.

2. The Deputy Inspector General, Cisf North Zone, Head Quarters, Saket, New Delhi.

3. The Deputy Inspector General, Cisf Unit, NLC, Neyvlei, Cuddalore District.

4. The Inspector General, North Sector, CISF Campus, Saket, Malviya Nagar Post, New Delhi 110 017.

5. The Union of India, Rep. By Its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.

..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 4th respondent dated 15.10.2009 in his Order No.V-11014/ RP-12/Kabir/Disc/NS/09/5805, confirming the order of the 2nd respondent dated 15.09.2006 in his Appellate order No.V-11014/ NZ/44/ DISC/ 2006 /113 and confirming the order of the 1st respondent dated 15.04.2006 in his final order No.V-15014/ CISF/8RB/Disc/KMK/U/R-36/06-1295 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to pay all monetary benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sivakumar For Respondents: Mr.A.Manoj Kumar for Mr.M.Balaji

ORDER

The captioned writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated

15.04.2006 passed by the first respondent. By the said order, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of three years with cumulative effect. The said order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, namely the second respondent, and also by the Revisional Authority, i.e., the fourth respondent.

2. Mr. K. Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that as on the date on which the revision petition was filed before the fourth respondent, the petitioner was working under the control of the third respondent and, therefore, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

3. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India and Others, AIR 2014 SC 3607, wherein it was held that the Patna High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, as the representation seeking disability compensation was made when the petitioner therein was residing at Gaya, Bihar, and the order rejecting his claim was communicated to him at his address in Bihar.

4. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shanti Devi alias Shanti Mishra v. Union of India and Others, AIR Online 2020 SC 819, wherein it was held that the Patna High Court had territorial jurisdiction since the deceased petitioner therein had been continuously receiving pension for the last eight years in his savings bank account maintained with the State Bank of India, Darbhanga, and the stoppage of pension affected him at his native place, thereby depriving him of the benefit of pension which he was receiving from his employer.

5. Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, Civil Appeal No.197 of 2022 wherein it was held that the power of judicial review of an order transferring an original application pending before a Bench of the Tribunal to another Bench under Section 25 of the Act can be exercised only by a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Bench passing the transfer order is situated.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition and sought dismissal of the same. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Others, MANU/SC/0759/1994, wherein it