##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9289 of 2022

======================================================

Sanjay Kumar Singh S/o Umeshwar Prasad Singh Resident of Village Patori,

P.S. Satar Katiya, District- Saharsa, working as Reg. No. 94003150, Rank

Head Constable/G.D. Gulm F, 53th Bn, Boarder Security Force, COB Raohat,

(Police Station), Post Kolar, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Jaisalmer

House, 26, Mansingh Road, New Delhi- 110011.

2. The Director General, Baorder Security Force, Block No.10, CGO Complex,

New Delhi- 110003.

3. D.G. Comnd. HQSPL OPS (BSF) D-II/21Q22, Sec. 17, Atal Nagar, New

Raipur, Chhatishgarh.

4. The IG, B.S.F. (Spl Ops) CG Old Moh, Sector-4, Bhilai, Durg, Chhatisgarh,

490001.

5. The DIG BSF, Sector-6, Bhilai, Chhttisgarh, 490006.

6. The Commandant, 53 Bn. BSF, Durgkondal, Distt Kanker, Uttar Baster,

Chhattisgarh, Pin- 494669.

7. The Director General of B.S.F. Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Madhav Jha, Advocate

For the UoI : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. CGC

Mr. Arvind Kumar, CGC

Mr. Avinash Kumar, CGC

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

ORAL ORDER

3 31-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging

the order dated 10.07.2021 as well as the order dated

31.01.2022, whereby the petitioner, who was an employee of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.9289 of 2022(3) dt.31-01-2026

2/3

Border Security Force (BSF), has been retired on the ground of

unsuitability for service under Rule 26 of the BSF Rules, 1969

read with Rule 40 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, with

compulsory pension at the rate of compensation pension, i.e.,

50% of the emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is

higher, along with other admissible pensionary benefits, without

considering the case of the petitioner and his reply to the show-

cause notice.

3. Learned counsel for the Union of India has raised a

preliminary objection submitting that the petitioner was

admittedly an employee of the BSF Headquarters at

Chhattisgarh and that the impugned orders were passed by the

competent authority at Chhattisgarh. Therefore, the present writ

petition is not maintainable before this Court, as the entire cause

of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of

Chhattisgarh.

4. In view of the aforesaid submission, since the cause

of action relating to the petitioner has arisen within the State of

Chhattisgarh, the present writ petition stands disposed of with

liberty to the petitioner to avail his appropriate remedy before

the competent court at Chhattisgarh within a period of 90 days

from the date of this order.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9289 of 2022(3) dt.31-01-2026

3/3

5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the

present writ petition stands disposed of.

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

Ashwini/-

U