JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON MUKESH KUMAR SINGH V/S THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

RANCHI, India, April 13 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on March 11:

1. Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for compassionate appointment.

3. The facts are admitted in this case. The father of the petitioner was working as Sweeper-cum-Night Watchman and was attached with the office of Block Livestock Development Office at district Purulia in the State of West Bengal under the Directorate of Animal Husbandry. It is also admitted that the father of the petitioner was an employee under the Government of West Bengal and not under Government of Jharkhand. He died in harness on 08.03.2014.

4. Now the petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment from the State of West Bengal. The entire cause of action for claiming compassionate appointment arises in the State of West Bengal and not in the State of Jharkhand. This writ petition has been filed in the State of Jharkhand only taking a plea that now since the petitioner is residing in the State of Jharkhand, the cause of action will arise in the State of Jharkhand.

5. This Court is not in an agreement with the submission of the petitioner.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim" reported in (2007) 11 SCC 335 has held as under:

"37. From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio laid down in a catena of decisions by this Court, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the appellant-petitioner would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the court, the court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless it must be a "part of cause of action", nothing less than that."

7. Considering the aforesaid judgment and the facts of this case since the entire cause of action for the core purpose of this writ petition arises in the State of West Bengal and none of the cause of action arose in the State of Jharkhand, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction.

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed only on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.