ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. In the present writ application the prayer of the petitioner are three fold :-- (i) To pay all the legal and retrial dues with 12% interest. (ii) To pay due salary from November, 2000 to March, 2001 including the arrears as per revision of pay due from January, 1999 to November, 1999. (iii) To refund the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) which was deducted from his retrial dues. 3. As per averments made in the writ application, the petitioner took voluntary retirement in March, 2001 from the post of Senior Foreman, RO (G) from Haldia site of the respondent No. 1 M/s. Instrumentation Limited falling in the State of West Bengal. He was initially appointed in the year 1971 and was posted at Bokaro office of Instrumentation Ltd. till he was transferred and posted in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1994. Again in the year 1997 he was transferred to Rourkella Regional Office in the State of Orissa. In the year 1999, he was transferred to Mumbai and from there to Kolkata and then ultimately to Haldia (West Bengal) from where he applied for voluntary retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme, which was accepted on 15.03.2001. According to the petitioner after his retirement he was residing in Village Udrangi in the District of Lohardaga within the State of Jharkhand. 4. In March, 2001 itself the petitioner made representation to the respondent No. 1 for payment of his entire legal and retrial dues. It is said that vide office note dated 25.05.2001 issued by the Accounts Officer (SA) a Demand Draft of Rs. 4,23,875/-(four lakhs, twenty three thousand, eight hundred and seventy five) was sent to the petitioner wherein it was mentioned that Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) was deducted from his retrial dues as per the advice of Mumbai Office of the respondent No. 1. On the request made by the petitioner the concerned authorities did not give the break up of the payment so that he can claim his other due a statement of payment was supplied to him wherein it was shown that Rs. 11.246.36 paise and Rs. 77,237.15 paise has been deducted on account of rent and electricity charges for the quarters at RSP site and as per advice sent by Mumbai and Roukella office. 11.246.36 paise and Rs. 77,237.15 paise has been deducted on account of rent and electricity charges for the quarters at RSP site and as per advice sent by Mumbai and Roukella office. The petitioner made a representation before the Senior Personnel Officer (R and SO) Instrumentation Limited, Kota, Rajasthan on 15,11.2001 for payment of his dues but to no effect. 5. From Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, it appears that the respondent No. 1 replied to the petitioner that in spite of repeated reminders he was not collecting the Demand Draft regarding payment of his retrial dues and on the contrary writing various fictitious and baseless letters, his full and final payment has already been calculated and on the basis of the records available in the company a Demand Draft for Rs. 96,797.80 paise were made for him, which was sent and enclosed with the said letter dated 23.11.2001. 6. From the facts stated above it is clear that none of the cause of action for the purpose/relief of filing the present writ application arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. It is not disputed that in the year 2000 or 2001 the petitioner was not posted in the State of Jharkhand and therefore the cause of action for claim for payment of salary from November, 2000 to March, 2001 arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. So far as the deduction of Rs. One lakh from the retiral dues is concerned, from the facts stated in the writ application itself discloses that, for that also, the cause of action arose while he was posted at Rourkella or at Mumbai. So far the claim of arrears of salary on the basis of revision of pay from 1992 is concerned, it has not been stated by the petitioner as to when there was revision of pay whether it was after he was posted out in the year 1994 from Bokaro or whether the pay was revised while he was posted at Bokaro. It has been stated by the petitioner in this writ application that other employees of the respondent No. 1 got the benefit of revision of pay but in that regard also there is no statement in the writ application as to when the other employees did get the said benefit so as to, give rise to the cause of action for the petitioner. 7. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Adani Export Ltd. and Anr., reported in AIR 2002 SC 126 , has held as follows :-- "In order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition or a special civil application, the High Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower the Court to decide a dispute which has, at least in -part, arisen within its jurisdiction. It is clear that each and every fact pleaded in the application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the Courts territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned." 8. In the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors., reported in 1994 (4) SCC 711 , the Supreme Court also held as follows :-- "Under Article 226 a High Court can exercise the power to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part-Ill of the Constitution or for any other purpose if the cause of action, wholly or notwithstanding that the seat of the 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 the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the Court must take all the facts pleaded 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. Thus the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition, the truth or otherwise of the averments made in the petition being immaterial." 9. Thus the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition, the truth or otherwise of the averments made in the petition being immaterial." 9. Relying on the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court and on consideration of the facts stated in the writ petition,. I am of the view that the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do not constitute a cause so as to empower this Court to decide a dispute which has arisen within its jurisdiction and therefore the present writ application is held to be not maintainable before this Court. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.