Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 472 (MP)

Hemlata Jatav v. State of M. P.

2015-04-23

SUJOY PAUL

body2015
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is a resident of village Bihari Ka Pura, District Bhind. The petitioner was appointed by Chief Municipal Health Officer (CMHO), District Sehore (respondent No.4) as ANM. She was appointed on 16.12.2010. The appointment was made on contract basis. She was also sent for some training to Nasrullaganj, District Sehore. The petitioner contends that she submitted her joining in said Community Health Centre, Nasrullaganj on 5.11.2011. In para 5.15, the petitioner has pleaded that the petitioner is continuously working but she has not been permitted to work and since 2012 she is not getting regular salary. A direction is prayed for against respondent No.4 for permitting her to continue in employment with further direction to pay salary etc. 3. Shri Newaskar took a primary objection about territorial jurisdiction. It is contended that no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Shri U.K.Bohre submits that the petitioner is resident of Bhind and, therefore, ill-effect of non-payment of salary is falling on her at Bhind. It is submitted that it gives part of cause of action to her. In support of said submission, he relied on AIR 1983 KAR. 43 (D.L.Suresh Babu v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and others); 1987 JLJ 341 = AIR 1987 MP 228 (FB) (K.P. Govil v. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur) and (1995)4 SCC 738 (U.P. Rashtriya Chini Milladhikari Parishad, Lucknow v. State of Uttar Pradesh). 5. I have heard the parties at length. 6. No doubt, as per language employed in Article 226 (2) of the Constitution, a petition can be filed before a Bench of the High Court if cause of action wholly or in part has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Bench. However, in the present case it is seen that the petitioner was appointed at Sehore, prayer is made against respondents No.4 and 5 who are situated at Sehore, the action of non-payment of salary has also arisen at Sehore/Nasrullaganj. This action of the respondents, whereby the petitioner has not been permitted to work and has not been paid salary has given cause of action to the petitioner. These have arisen beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 7. The judgment of Full Bench in K.P.Govil (supra), has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. This action of the respondents, whereby the petitioner has not been permitted to work and has not been paid salary has given cause of action to the petitioner. These have arisen beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 7. The judgment of Full Bench in K.P.Govil (supra), has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. In the said case, the employee was working within the territory of Gwalior Bench and an order passed by defendant Jabalpur University had an ill-effect on him at Gwalior, whereas the petitioner in the present case was appointed and posted at Sehore. Similarly in U.P.Rashtriya Chini Milladhikari Parishad (supra), the apex Court opined that if cause of action wholly or partly arises within the territory of a Court, it can be entertained. The said legal principle cannot be doubted but on facts, it is clear that no cause of action has arisen here. The judgment of D.L.Suresh Babu (supra), has no application in the factual matrix of this case. The petitioners therein sent their nomination papers by post from Bangalore. The institution situated at Delhi dispatched orders, which were served at Bangalore. The ill-effect had fallen on the petitioners therein at Bangalore. In those peculiar circumstances, the Court opined that part of cause of action has arisen at Bangalore. 8. As analyzed above, no cause of action has arisen in the territory of this Bench. Hence, petition is dismissed by reserving liberty to the petitioner to file it before appropriate Bench.