Judgment : P. Naveen Rao, J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 21.8.2009 in W.P. No. 803 of 2001. The Respondent is the appellant. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition. 2. Petitioner instituted writ petition aggrieved by the action of the respondent bank in not releasing the amount accrued to the credit of Provident Fund Account No 5311 of her late husband K. Markandeyulu. 3. Deceased K Markandeyulu was an officer of UCO Bank. By order dated 23.12.1988 he was inflicted with punishment of dismissal from service. This punishment has become final. He died on 18.9.1998. While in service, he contributed to the Provident Fund Account bearing No. 5311 and an amount of Rs.1,98,229.09 Ps was accrued to his account. The amount accrued to the above account was not returned while he was alive and there was no correspondence in this regard. After the demise of her husband, late K Suguna Lakshmi started making requests to settle the Provident Fund Account and release the money. Since there was no response for a long time, late K.Suguna Lakshmi instituted Writ Petition No. 803 of 2001 alleging the inaction of the respondent bank in releasing the money due to them as arbitrary and discriminatory. During the pendency of the writ petition, on 19.08.2002 a sum of Rs.57,028.09 Ps was released. Thus, an amount of Rs.1,40,468/-was detained by the respondent bank. The respondent bank justifies the action in not releasing the entire Provident Fund amount on the ground that while late employee was in service, he availed Rs.1,200/-which carried interest which was not paid by him and the amount detained is towards the amount due to the bank. During the pendency of the writ petition late K Suguna Lakshmi died on 28.10.2004. Sri K Ramakrishna Anand and Smt Sri Devi came on record as legal representatives of the deceased writ petitioner. 4. On detailed consideration of the matter, learned single Judge of this Court held that detaining the said sum was illegal, without power and jurisdiction and directed to pay the same with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank contends that bank is entitled to recover the amount of loss caused for the illegal action of his officers. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank contends that bank is entitled to recover the amount of loss caused for the illegal action of his officers. Learned counsel further contends that the employees of the bank are governed by the UCO Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979 and in terms of Regulation 46, the deceased employee is not entitled to gratuity and that Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application. Confronted with the grave lapses in dealing with the genuine claim of the petitioner, the respondent bank takes hyper technical route to deprive the legitimate claim contending that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance of the petitioner since husband of petitioner was dismissed from service when he was working at Bhuvaneshwar in State of Orissa. This contention on territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain the writ petition was not raised in the Writ Petition. They have contested the Writ Petition on matter. 6. This court has jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition alleging infraction of a right, if cause of action of such infraction arises within the territory of State of Andhra Pradesh. Cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the reaction. Even if part of the cause of action on material facts arises within the territory of state of Andhra Pradesh, writ petition is maintainable. In this case, after the dismissal from service, ex-employee of the bank settled in Hyderabad and after his demise, his wife also lived in Hyderabad. After the demise of her husband, she represented for settlement of Provident Fund account of her late husband from Hyderabad and part of the amount was paid in Hyderabad during the pendency of the writ petition. After the demise, her legal representatives have come on record. They also reside in Hyderabad. On 19.5.1999 a representation was submitted to appellant bank signed by late K Suguna Lakshmi, K Ramakrishna Anand and Smt K. Sridevi. It was signed in Hyderabad. As there was no response, on 18.1.2000 a legal notice was issued from Hyderabad for early settlement of amounts due to them. Reply dated 28.1.2000 was sent to her Hyderabad address. But for the adamant attitude of the respondent Bank the amount would have been paid in Hyderabad only. It was signed in Hyderabad. As there was no response, on 18.1.2000 a legal notice was issued from Hyderabad for early settlement of amounts due to them. Reply dated 28.1.2000 was sent to her Hyderabad address. But for the adamant attitude of the respondent Bank the amount would have been paid in Hyderabad only. After the dismissal from service, the relationship of master and servant was not subsisting and therefore the ex-employee’s last assignment in Bhubaneshwar prior to his dismissal from service has no significance to identify the jurisdiction. The cause of action arose only after his dismissal when he settled down in Hyderabad and when the amounts due to him were not paid to him and after his demise to his legal hairs who all live in Hyderabad. Amounts were due to be paid in Hyderabad. The contention on jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition is made with oblique motive. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim (2007) 11 SCC 335 ), held as under: “25……….In our judgment, the test is whether a particular fact(s) is (are) of substance and can be said to be material, integral or essential part of the lis between the parties. If it is, it forms a part of cause of action. If it is not, it does not form a part of cause of action. It is also well settled that in determining the question, the substance of the matter and not the form thereof has to be considered. 31. In Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 567 a question of territorial jurisdiction came up for consideration. A filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Gujarat claiming benefit of the Passport Scheme under the EXIM policy. Passport was issued by Chennai Office. Entries in the passport were made by the authorities at Chennai. None of the respondents was stationed within the State of Gujarat. It was, therefore, contended that the Gujarat High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The contention, however, was negatived and the petition was allowed. The respondents approached the Supreme Court.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 7 SCC 640 ), held as under: “17. It was, therefore, contended that the Gujarat High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The contention, however, was negatived and the petition was allowed. The respondents approached the Supreme Court.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 7 SCC 640 ), held as under: “17. From the provision in clause (2) of Article 226 it is clear that the maintainability or otherwise of the writ petition in the High Court depends on whether the cause of action for filing the same arose, wholly or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. 18. In legal parlance the expression “cause of action” is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person. (Black’s Law Dictionary) 37…………..Thus the power conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 could as well be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which “the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises” and it is no matter that the seat of the authority concerned is outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of that High Court. The amendment is thus aimed at widening the width of the area for reaching the writs issued by different High Courts.” 9. In this case facts which are material, integral or essential part of the lis between the parties herein arise in the State of Andhra Pradesh and this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition. Therefore the contention of the respondent bank on maintainability of Writ Petition has no merit. 10. Even assuming that there is some merit in the contention of respondent bank on the issue of jurisdiction it is not just and equitable to throw the Writ Petition on that ground at this stage. 11. Therefore the contention of the respondent bank on maintainability of Writ Petition has no merit. 10. Even assuming that there is some merit in the contention of respondent bank on the issue of jurisdiction it is not just and equitable to throw the Writ Petition on that ground at this stage. 11. On an identical issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff (2001) 9 SCC 525 ), held as under: “3.The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court at Allahabad to quash a communication sent to his wife which stated that the appellant had been tried by a Summary Court Martial and had been found guilty of using criminal force against his superior officer and awarded the sentence of dismissal from service. The High Court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage by holding: “In view of the fact that the summary court-martial proceedings were conducted in the State of Punjab and orders were also passed in Punjab by the West Command, we are of the view that this Court has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition.” 4. The writ petition was filed in 1992. The impugned order was passed in 1999. This is a fact that the High Court should have taken into consideration. More importantly, it should have taken into consideration the fact that the Chief of Army Staff may be sued anywhere in the country. Placing reliance only on the cause of action, as the High Court did, was not justified.” 12. Further, the respondent Bank did not raise the objection on the maintainability of the Writ Petition in the counter filed in the Writ Petition nor arguments were advanced during the course of hearing of the Writ Petition. Thus, they cannot be permitted to raise such an objection in the Appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Dugal Kumar (2008) 14 SCC 295 held as under: “21. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. So far as the technical objection raised by the Company with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta is concerned, in our opinion, it would not be appropriate to set aside the order passed in favour of the writ petitioner on that ground. So far as the technical objection raised by the Company with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta is concerned, in our opinion, it would not be appropriate to set aside the order passed in favour of the writ petitioner on that ground. It is clear from the record that the writ petition came up for admission hearing on 6-9-1999 and the counsel for the appellant Company was present. Not only that he did not raise any objection as to territorial jurisdiction of the court, he expressly made a statement before the court to pass “usual order”. Accordingly, an order was passed directing the Company to allot “balance quantity of 1008 MT” of coal to the writ petitioner. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Company that the High Court of Calcutta had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.” 13. There is no pleading in the counter filed opposing the claim in the writ petition, as to how and when amount fell due to the bank and what steps were taken by the respondent bank while the individual was in service or soon after he was dismissed from service. The grounds urged in the writ appeal, are not supported by any pleading in the counter filed by the bank in the writ petition. Except making bald assertion that amount was borrowed by the individual, no further details are furnished. There is no material to show how Rs1,40,468/-was treated as due to the Bank. As observed by the learned single Judge, the relationship of master and servant ceases after the dismissal from service and at any rate, once an employee dies, no recovery can be affected. As held by the learned single judge, Bank cannot recover from Provident Fund contributions. 14. All the contentions urged by the appellant are invented for the purpose of filing the writ appeal. Further it is not open to the appellant to raise contentions which were not made before the learned single Judge. 15. It is a vexatious litigation pursued by the respondent bank to harass wife and children of the deceased. 14. All the contentions urged by the appellant are invented for the purpose of filing the writ appeal. Further it is not open to the appellant to raise contentions which were not made before the learned single Judge. 15. It is a vexatious litigation pursued by the respondent bank to harass wife and children of the deceased. In the process of prosecuting this litigation, at the advanced age when such amount would have been of a great help to attend to various basic needs, the amount due to her was not paid and she died dissatisfied of not receiving the amount which was legitimately due to her. Her legal hairs are also not allowed to enjoy the fruits of success in the Writ Petition. 16. There is no error much less patent error in the decision arrived at by the learned single Judge. Learned single judge has considered all the contentions urged on behalf of respondent Bank justifying their decision to withhold an amount of Rs.1,40,468/- 17. There are no merits in the writ appeal and the same fails. Sequel to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any stand closed. No costs.