SUNIL AMBWANI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri V. P. Shukla, counsel for petitioner and Sri Gopal Chandra Saxena, Additional standing Counsel for respondents. ( 2 ) PETITIONER was appointed as Constable in Border Security Force on 25. 6. 1986. After completing training he was posted at various places. On 4. 9. 1993 he was transferred and posted at Headquarter Turra, district West Garo Hill, Meghalay. Due to change of climate, he fell ill and suffered attack of Bronchial Asthama and was under continuous treatment at Christian Mission hospital, Turra. The Doctors recommended that he should be transferred to suitable climate. He was required to appear before medical board which submitted its report dated 9. 4. 1995 recommending that petitioner should not be posted at high altitude cold climatic areas. Instead of transferring petitioner to suitable climate condition he was posted at Srinagar, Jammu and kashmir which aggravated his health condition. Repeated reminders and personal meetings with commandant of the Battalion did not result into any positive action. Instead of considering petitioners grievances, he advised him to resign from service and assured that petitioner will be given pensionary benefits. In this condition petitioner submitted his resignation on 21. 8. 1996, On the same day he met the Acting Commandant, 38 Battalion Border Security Force. The resignation was accepted on 9. 9. 1996 with direction that petitioner shall be allowed to draw pension and petitioners pensionary benefits as are applicable to the personnel of Border Security force. The letter dated 7. 9. 1996 accepting his resignation and verifying the assurance that he will draw all pensionary benefits as are applicable to personnel of Border Security Force without any reduction as quoted below : ( 3 ) INSTEAD of receiving pensionary benefits, petitioner received a letter dated 7. 6. 1999 from the commandant of the Battalion informing him that since he had not completed twenty years of service he was not entitled to any pensionary benefit. He was given an option to resume service, provided he deposits the entire amounts received by him at the time of resignation. Petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 51604 of 1999 for receiving pensionary benefits which is still pending. It is contended in paragraph 11 in the writ petition that in pursuance of order dated 7. 6. 1996 petitioner visited the office of Commandant, 38 Battalion B. S. F. on 12. 11. Petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 51604 of 1999 for receiving pensionary benefits which is still pending. It is contended in paragraph 11 in the writ petition that in pursuance of order dated 7. 6. 1996 petitioner visited the office of Commandant, 38 Battalion B. S. F. on 12. 11. 1998 along with application for waiving the condition of depositing the amounts received at the time of resignation. His request was declined. Petitioner again received letter dated 5. 8. 1999 from respondent No. 3 stating that petitioner visited the office on 12. 11. 1998 and left the camps on 13. 11. 1998 without any information to the office. He was again required to resume service and to deposit the amounts. Petitioner again filed application requesting that since he was ailing for a long period, the amount received by him has been spent and requested to relax the condition. Thereafter repeated applications were filed and lastly on 25. 5. 2002 to reinstate him in service or to pay the pensionary benefit without any result. This writ petition has now been filed with a prayer for a direction commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service in pursuant to the orders dated 7. 6. 1999 and 5. 8. 1999 relaxing the condition of depositing of amount received at the time of discharge from the service. ( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit of Sri P. K. Misra, Deputy Inspector General, Sector Headquarters, border Security Force, Nagaland and Manipur, it is stated that present writ petition is not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action of this petition has arisen within jurisdiction of this Honble Court. Petitioner was discharged from his service after he resigned from Border Security Force while he was posted outside of the State of U. P. It is further submitted petitioner has not challenged his discharge order which was passed on account of resignation submitted by him and thus, petitioner cannot be reinstated in service and lastly the present writ petition is highly time barred and further no explanation for delay in filing the present writ petition has been given by petitioner on 23. 8. 2002 where as cause of action either on the date of acceptance of his resignation on 7. 9. 1996 or when he left the camp on 13. 11. 1998. 8. 2002 where as cause of action either on the date of acceptance of his resignation on 7. 9. 1996 or when he left the camp on 13. 11. 1998. It is alleged that respondent No. 3 declined to entertain the application. Respondents have also stated that petitioner were discharged from service-after receiving his resignation in terms of rule 19 (1) of B. S. F. Rules, 1969. Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar, (2001) 2 UPLBEC 1163, held that no member of Border Security Force will have right to resign except with prior permission in writing of the prescribed authority. Rule 19 provided that Central government may, having regard to the special circumstances of any case, may permit any officer of the Force to resign from the Force before the attainment of the age of retirement or before putting in such number of years of service as may be necessary under the rules to be eligible for retirement. These discretionary powers are given to the authority to accept or reject their resignation. Proviso to Rule 19 (1) empowers the Central Government, while granting permission to resign, to require the officer to refund to the Government such amount as would constitute the cost of training given to that officer. Further, if the officer is eligible to get pension or other retirement benefits, Rules empower the Government to make reduction in the pension or other retirement benefits. Rule 3 (9) provide qualifying service, of the service rendered by law or otherwise. Rule 13 providethat qualifying service commencing from the date when he discharged from the post to which he appointed either substantially or temporary capacity. These rules nowhere provide that qualifying service for getting pension is ten years. On the contrary there is specific provision that if a Government servant retires before completing qualifying service of ten years, he will not get pension but get the amount of service gratuity. The Supreme court held that where respondents retired after completing qualifying service of ten years but before completing qualifying service of twenty years of voluntary retirement, they are not entitled to pensionary benefits. The Supreme court held that where respondents retired after completing qualifying service of ten years but before completing qualifying service of twenty years of voluntary retirement, they are not entitled to pensionary benefits. Those respondents who have permitted to resign from service under Rule 19 of the B. S. F. Rules before attaining age of retirement or before putting him qualifying number of years for pension are not entitled to get any pension under any of the provision of C. C. S. (Pension) Rules. The aforesaid judgment was rendered by Supreme Court on 30. 3. 2001. Petitioners matter for pension was pending with Pay and Accounts Division, B. S. F. which was returned by the Pay and Accounts Division on the ground that petitioner had not rendered minimum twenty years of service and was ineligible for pension. On this ground he was called back to the unit by letter No. 2342, dated 16. 10. 1998. Petitioner reported to the unit on 12. 11. 1998 but without joining duties he went back and inspite of being called again vide Unit letter No. 578 of 1989, dated 8. 2. 1999 he did not report. It is submitted in para 18 in the counter-affidavit that petitioner was discharged on 30. 11. 1996. Although respondents provided petitioner all possible opportunities to rejoin the unit but the petitioner did not avail opportunity. Since he had not completed minimum twenty years of service, he is not entitled for any pensionary benefits. ( 5 ) SRI Gopal Chandra Saxena submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter, as no cause of action even if part thereof has originated within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and thus, the writ petition is not maintainable at Allahabad High Court. He has relied upon a Constitution Bench decision of Supreme Court in Lt. Col Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, air 1961 SC 532 , where it was held that it is not permissible to read in Article 226 the residence or location of the person affected by the order passed in order to determine the jurisdiction of the high Court. That jurisdiction depends upon the person or authority passing the order being within those territories. That jurisdiction depends upon the person or authority passing the order being within those territories. These words in Article 226 do not refer to the place where Government may be within but only to the place where person or the authority has either residence or is located. So far a natural person is concerned he is within those territories if he resides there permanently or temporarily. So far as an authority other than Government is concerned it is within the territory if its office is located there. So far as Government is concerned it is within the territories only if its seat is within those territories. The seat of Central Government is at New delhi and the Government as such is located in New Delhi. The rules issued by the Court therefore cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction and that the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be within those territories, which clearly implies that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction neither by residence or by location within those territories. ( 6 ) IN Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, 1994 (4) SCC 711 , the Supreme court held that under Article 226, the High Court can exercise the power to issue direction, orders or rules for enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purposes, if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territories. The expression cause of action means that bundle of facts which petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to the judgment in his favour by the Court. The Court must take all pleaded facts in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. The question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition and that truth specially of the averment made in the writ petition are immaterial. The said view has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in various decisions namely Union of India and Ors. v. Apparel Export Limited and Ors. The question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition and that truth specially of the averment made in the writ petition are immaterial. The said view has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in various decisions namely Union of India and Ors. v. Apparel Export Limited and Ors. , 2002 (1) SCC 567 and Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. and Ors. , AIR 2002 SC 126 . ( 7 ) EXAMINING the allegations in the writ petition I find that petitioner was last posted, resigned and his resignation was accepted at a place outside the Uttar Pradesh. In para 7 of the writ petition it is stated that he had been posted to Srinagar, J and K which resulted in downfall in his health. However, petitioner again made an application before respondent No. 3 requesting therein to post him at a suitable place and personally met with respondent No. 3 on 21. 8. 1996. Respondent No. 3 inspite of considering grievances of the petitioner insisted petitioner to resign and assured him pensionary benefits. However, petitioner submitted his resignation on the same day, i. e. , 21. 8. 1996. The order dated 7. 6. 1999 issued by Commandant, 38 Battalion B. S. F. originated from Satrana (Rajasthan ). Petitioner reported for duties with a prayer to exempt him for depositing amount on 12. 11. 1998 at Satrana. He was again required to report vide letter dated 5. 8. 1999 written from the Headquarter of 38 Battalion Satrana (Rajasthan ). The letter dated 26. 7. 2002 was also sent by which petitioners last representation was issued by Headquarter of 38 Battalion B. S. F. through 99 A. P. O. The Headquarters of B. S. F. are situated in New Delhi. ( 8 ) PETITIONERs residence does not give him cause of action as the authority or the Central government to whom writ is to be issued is not situated in the territories of Uttar Pradesh. ( 9 ) A Division Bench of this Court in Lt. Colonel (Mrs.) Saroj Mahanta v. Union of India, decided on 30. 4. ( 8 ) PETITIONERs residence does not give him cause of action as the authority or the Central government to whom writ is to be issued is not situated in the territories of Uttar Pradesh. ( 9 ) A Division Bench of this Court in Lt. Colonel (Mrs.) Saroj Mahanta v. Union of India, decided on 30. 4. 2003, has considered the entire law with regard to territorial Jurisdiction of this court, and has held that in such cases cause of action neither in full nor in part arises to petitioner, and that the respondents neither reside nor have office within the territory of this court. The writ petition thus cannot be considered and entertained on merits. ( 10 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I uphold the objection of the Additional Standing Counsel, that on the cause of action disclosed in the writ petition, this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the writ petition. The writ petition is consequently dismissed and not maintainable in the High Court of jurisdiction at Allahabad. There shall be no order as to costs.