The petitioner who was holding the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) under respondent No. 1 viz the Assam State Electricity Board has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents for re-fixation of his pension on the basis of the revised scale of pay which was accepted by the respondents as per the recommendation made by the Pay Committee by its resolution vide office memo No.ASEB(PC)274/94/35 dated 14.9.95 contained in Annexure 3. 2. The case of the petitioner is that after rendering service for a period of about 29 years he voluntarily retired after service of necessary notice of three months and his notice seeking voluntary retirement was also duly accepted and he was allowed pension after 1/3rd commutation of his pension. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though his basic pay was fixed at Rs.5,450/- with effect from 1.4.92 on the basis of the revised scale, the respondents erroneously fixed his pension at Rs.973/- instead of Rs. 1,947/- per month. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition for the relief as mentioned above. 4. On receipt of the notice of motion the respondents filed a written objection taking a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition mainly on the ground that as per the Presidential Order establishing permanent Bench of Gauhati High Court at Agartala which was notified on 14.5.92 the Agartala Bench of Gauhati High Court is not entitled to entertain such an application as the cause of action of this case arose in Assam i.e. beyond the State of Tripura. 5. Mr. BB Deb, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has produced the aforesaid notification and submitted that a perusal of this notification will clearly indicate that Agartala Bench of Gauhati High Court is entitled to entertain writ petition, the cause of action of whicli arises within the State of Tripura. It is also submitted by Mr. Deb that Agartala Bench of Gauhati High Court is, however, entitled to entertain such writ petition provided the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court passes necessary orders in this regard. For appreciation of the contention of Mr. It is also submitted by Mr. Deb that Agartala Bench of Gauhati High Court is, however, entitled to entertain such writ petition provided the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court passes necessary orders in this regard. For appreciation of the contention of Mr. Deb the aforesaid notification may be quoted as under : "NOTIFICATION CSR - The following order made by the President under sub-section (2) of section 24 of the State of Amnachal Pradesh Act, 1986 (69 of 1986), read with sub-section (2) of section 31 of the North Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 (81 of 1971), is hereby published as required by the said provisions, namely: The Gauhati High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Agartala) Order, 1992. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 24 of the State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, 1986 (69 of 1986), read with sub-section (2) of section 31 of the North Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 (81 of 1971) the President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court and the Governor of Tripura, is pleased to make the following order, namely : 1. Short title and commencement: (1) This Order may be called the Gauhati High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Agartala ) Order, 1992. (2) it shall come into force on the 16th day of May, 1992. 2. Establishment of a permanent Bench of Gauhati High Court at Agartala : There shall be established a permanent Bench of the Gauhati High Court at Agartala and such Judges of the Gauhati High Court, being not less than three in number, as the Chief Justice of that High Court may, from time to time nominate, shall sit at Agartala in order to exercise the jurisdiction and powers for the time being vested in the Gauhati High Court in respect of cases arising in the State of Tripura: Provided that the Chief Justice of that High Court may, in his discretion, order that any case or class of cases arising in the State Tripura shall be heard at Gauhati." 6. On going through this notification I find that it has been clearly stated under para 2 of the notification that Judges will hold Court at Agartala as Hon 'ble Chief Justice nominate from time to time and the Judges sitting at Agartala Bench as per the nomination of Hon'ble Chief Justice can exercise jurisdiction and powers for the time being vasted in the High Court in respect of the cases arising in the State of Tripura. 7. The learned Advocate General, Tripura who was requested to assist the Court on this point has also submitted that since the cause of action of this writ arose in Assam and not within the State of Tripura the petitioner ought to have filed this writ petition in the Principal Seat at Gauhati. It was, however, submitted by the learned Advocate General that in case of emergency some interim relief may be granted, but in that case also after passing the interim order the matter should be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice immediately. 8. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned Advocate General, Tripura and particularly in view of the provisions laid down under para 2 of the notification I am of the view that the petitioner ought to have filed this writ petition in the Principal Seat of Gauhati High Court as admittedly the office of the respondents is situate at Guwahati and that cause of action of this writ petition also arose there. 9. Therefore., the writ petition be returned and the petitioner is granted liberty to present the writ petition in the Principal Seat of Gauhati High Court, if he is so advised. 10. The petition is accordingly disposed of. But under the circumstances there would be no order as to costs.