Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 90 (MP)

Munnilal v. State of M. P.

2017-01-17

VIVEK RUSIA

body2017
ORDER : VIVEK RUSIA, J. 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. Shri Dave, learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the present writ petition is not maintainable at the Indore Bench of this High Court as the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2011 passed by the District Pension Officer, Panna, therefore, petition ought to have been filed before the Principal Seat at Jabalpur which exercises the jurisdiction of district Panna. 3. In reply to the aforesaid objection, Ms.M.Ravindran, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Naval Kishore Sharma v. Union of India and others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329 ; Om prakash Shrivastava v. Union of India and another reported in (2006) 6 SCC 207 ; K.P.Govil, Assistant professor, Agriculture College, Gwalior v. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur and another (Full Bench) and M/s Cadbury India Ltd., Malanpur District Bhind & Ors. v. State of M.P and Another reported in 2007 (III) MPJR 195 and submitted that Indore Bench is also having jurisdiction because the petitioner after retirement is residing with his son at Indore. 4. Facts of the case in brief to decide the controversy relating to the territorial jurisdiction are reproduced below. Petitioner entered into the service on 06.12.1971 in the School Education Department and retired from the same Department on 28.02.2007. During his service he was posted at various places of the State of M.P. Vide order dated 24.09.2003 the State Government has directed to grant increment to the Teachers who were awarded by the President of India. The Deputy Directory has also passed an order to the same effect vide order dated 4.10.2004. Petitioner was granted this benefit of one increment till his retirement and thereafter his pension was calculated accordingly. Initially his pension was fixed at Rs.4500/- and later on it was revised at Rs.10695/- vide PPO order dated 16.06.2010. 5. Vide letter dated 6.1.2011 (Annexure P/5) the District Education Officer, Panna has written to the District Treasury Officer, Panna that the State award is different from the President and Governor's award, therefore, Teachers are not entitled for any increment, hence, petitioner and similarly situated Smt.Savitri Tiwari are not entitled for one increment because they were awarded Shikshan Kalyan Pratishta Puraskar which is different from the President and Governor's award. In view of the aforesaid letter vide order dated 29.10.2011 the PPO was revised and the pension of the petitioner was reduced to Rs.1050/-. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, petitioner submitted representations. Various correspondence took place between the petitioner and Govt. When the representations were not considered then petitioner approached this Court after giving legal notice from Indore. 7. In the present petition petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6.1.2011 passed by the District Education Officer, Panna by which one increment given to the petitioner was withdrawn and the order of the District Treasury Officer, Panna dated 29.10.2011 by which the pension was revised. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action, petitioner submitted representations either from Panna or from Bhopal. The internal communications were made between the Govt. authorities from Sagar to Panna. Before filing this petition only legal notice was issued from Indore. Petitioner has filed the present petition at Indore Bench only because at present petitioner is residing at Indore. The communications dated 6.1.2011 and 29.10.2011 Annexure P/5 and Annexure P/6 respectively were never received by the petitioner at Indore. These orders were received when petitioner was residing at Panna or Bhopal and he made representations against the said impugned orders either from Panna or Bhopal. In the case of Naval Kishore Sharma (supra) the Supreme Court has held that part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Patna High Court because letters were sent by the Department to the appellant (Naval Kishore Sharma) at his native place in Bihar where he was forced to stay after he was found medically unfit and he sent representations from his home in the State of Bihar to the respondents claiming disability pension. These representations were replied to him on his home address in Gaya, Bihar rejecting his claim for disability pension. Naval Kishore Sharma was suffering from heart muscular disease and forced to stay in his native place from where he had been making all correspondence, therefore, the Apex Court has found that a part or fraction of cause of action arose within a jurisdiction of Patna High Court where he received a letter of refusal. Naval Kishore Sharma was suffering from heart muscular disease and forced to stay in his native place from where he had been making all correspondence, therefore, the Apex Court has found that a part or fraction of cause of action arose within a jurisdiction of Patna High Court where he received a letter of refusal. That in para-19 the Apex Court has held that initially the writ petition was entertained and interim order was passed by the Patna High Court, therefore, the High Court ought not have dismissed the writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. In the present case petitioner has specifically challenged the order passed and the action taken by the District Education Officer, Panna and when these orders were passed he was residing at Panna and thereafter for a period of three years he resided either at Panna or Bhopal and made all correspondences. Indore is not his native place and only residing because his son is residing at Indore. He is also not claiming that because of illness he is forced to reside at Indore. 8. Vide notification dated 28.11.1968 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs by which a permanent Bench of M.P High Court was established at Indore and as per the notification the Indore Bench shall exercise the jurisdiction and powers in respect of cases arising in the revenue districts of Indore, Ujjain, Dewas, Dhar, Jhabua, Ratlam, Mandsaur, West Nimar (Khargone), Shajapur and Rajgarh. The notification is reproduced herein below:- Government Of India Ministry Of Home Affairs New Delhi, the 28th November, 1968. Notification The following Order made by the President is published for general information. ORDER : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956). The notification is reproduced herein below:- Government Of India Ministry Of Home Affairs New Delhi, the 28th November, 1968. Notification The following Order made by the President is published for general information. ORDER : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956). I, Zakir Hussain, President of India, after consultation with the Governor of Madhya Pradesh and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, here by establish a permanent Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore and further direct that such Judges of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, being not less than four in number, as the Chief Justice may from time to time nominate, shall sit at Indore in order to exercise the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in that High Court in respect of cases arising in the revenue district of Indore, Ujjain, Dewas, Dhar, Jhabua, Ratlam, Mandsaur, West Nimar (khargone), Shajapur and Rajgarh. Provided that the Chief Justice may, for special reasons, order that any case or class of cases arising in any such district shall be heard at Jabalpur. New Delhi, Zakir Hussain, President November 18, 1968 9. If the present writ petition is entertained then the District Education Officer, Panna is required to approach Indore for filing reply in the matter whereas the district Panna falls within the jurisdiction of Principal Seat of this High Court at Jabalpur, therefore, the facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts of the case of Naval Kishore Sharma (supra). Petitioner is not pleaded that he is suffering from various ailments and is not in a position to approach the Principal Seat of this High Court at Jabalpur. Petitioner ought to have filed a writ petition before the Principal Seat of this High Court at Jabalpur. 10. Chapter III Rule 1 says that all main cases shall be presented in Principal Seat or the Benches, as the case may be, strictly in accordance with Presidential order which is reproduced below:- 1. All main cases shall be presented in Principal Seat or the Benches, as the case may be, strictly in accordance with Presidential orders regarding territorial jurisdiction or the orders of the Chief Justice, passed from time to time. 11. All main cases shall be presented in Principal Seat or the Benches, as the case may be, strictly in accordance with Presidential orders regarding territorial jurisdiction or the orders of the Chief Justice, passed from time to time. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction with liberty to file the petition before appropriate Bench. No order as to costs.