JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner’s husband was serving in West Bengal Police as regular employee. He superannuated on 25.09.1958. The pension and gratuity payment orders were issued by parent department vide letter dated 04.03.1959 and forwarded to the Office of the Accountant General, West Bengal, who transmitted the same to the Office of the Accountant General, U.P. Allahabad vide letter dated 20.03.1959 for making payment of family pension from Chamoli Treasury. The Office of the Accountant General, U.P. authorized the Treasury Officer Garhwal vide letter dated 08.04.1959 to make payment in favour of the petitioner’s husband. 2. The petitioner’s husband died on 15.07.1976. He was getting his peznsion regularly w.e.f. 25.09.1958 from the Treasury Karanprayag, Chamoli. The petitioner sent a legal notice on 23.08.2002 under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming family pension and other benefits. The respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner vide letter 20.02.2003 to send all her documents to Finance (Audit) Department, Government of West Bengal to take necessary action for granting family pension to the petitioner. This letter was received by the petitioner in her Village & Post office Jilasu via Langasu District Chamoli. She submitted all the documents, as required by the respondents on 25.06.2003 vide annexure No.6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit bearing No.2/2006 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Karanprayag, District Chamoli seeking family pension. In the written statement, it has been stated that the matter was looked into by the respondents and the matter was sent on humanitarian ground to the concerned department. 3. Respondent No. 4 intimated the Office of Accountant General, West Bengal to look into the matter and send necessary Special Seal Authority letter to the office of the Accountant General, U.P. The same was also reiterated in letter dated 30.04.2012. However, despite that, the family pension was not released in favour of the petitioner. 4. The preliminary objection has been taken by respondent Nos.1 to 3 that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of State of West Bengal. There is an inordinate delay. The petitioner is an illiterate widow and she lost her husband on 15.07.1976. She was asked to submit the documents. She submitted the documents. The petitioner was also advised to file civil suit, which was dismissed by the civil court. Thereafter, she has approached before this Court. 5. There is an inordinate delay. The petitioner is an illiterate widow and she lost her husband on 15.07.1976. She was asked to submit the documents. She submitted the documents. The petitioner was also advised to file civil suit, which was dismissed by the civil court. Thereafter, she has approached before this Court. 5. The petitioner has right to get family pension on the first day of every month. It is continuous cause of action. The issue so far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the petitioner has received communication on 20.03.2003 at her village. She has supplied all the necessary documents. 6. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2014) 9 SCC 329 in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India and others have held that the letter of rejection of disability pension received at native place of petitioner where he was forced to stay due to said disability. The cause of action partly arose at his native place. Their Lordships have also explained “Cause of Action” as under :- “9. The interpretation given by this Court in the aforesaid decisions resulted in undue hardship and inconvenience to the citizens to invoke writ jurisdiction. As a result, clause (1-A) was inserted in Article 226 by the Constitution (Fifteenth) Amendment Act, 1963 and subsequently renumbered as clause (2) by the Constitution (Forty-second) Amendment Act, 1976. The amended clause (2) now reads as under: “226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, within those territories, directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. (3)-(4) * * *” On a plain reading of the amended provisions in clause (2), it is clear that now the High Court can issue a writ when the person or the authority against whom the writ is issued is located outside its territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action wholly or partially arises within the court’s territorial jurisdiction. Cause of action for the purpose of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, for all intent and purpose must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The expression cause of action has not been defined either in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Constitution. Cause of action is bundle of facts which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in the suit before he can succeed. The term “cause of action” as appearing in clause (2) came up for consideration time and again before this Court. 16. Regard being had to the discussion made hereinabove, there cannot be any doubt that the question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limit of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, the petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has been infringed by the respondents within the territorial limit of the Court’s jurisdiction. 17. We have perused the facts pleaded in the writ petition and the documents relied upon by the appellant. Indisputably, the appellant reported sickness on account of various ailments including difficulty in breathing. He was referred to hospital. Consequently, he was signed off for further medical treatment. Finally, the respondent permanently declared the appellant unfit for sea service due to dilated cardiomyopathy (heart muscle disease). As a result, the Shipping Department of the Government of India issued an Order on 12-4-2011 cancelling the registration of the appellant as a seaman. A copy of the letter was sent to the appellant at his native place in Bihar where he was staying after he was found medically unfit. It further appears that the appellant sent a representation from his home in the State of Bihar to the respondent claiming disability compensation. A copy of the letter was sent to the appellant at his native place in Bihar where he was staying after he was found medically unfit. It further appears that the appellant sent a representation from his home in the State of Bihar to the respondent claiming disability compensation. The said representation was replied by the respondent, which was addressed to him on his home address in Gaya, Bihar rejecting his claim for disability compensation. It is further evident that when the appellant was signed off and declared medically unfit, he returned back to his home in the district of Gaya, Bihar and, thereafter, he made all claims and filed representation from his home address at Gaya and those letters and representations were entertained by the respondents and replied and a decision on those representations were communicated to him on his home address in Bihar. Admittedly, the appellant was suffering from serious heart muscle disease (dilated cardiomyopathy) and breathing problem which forced him to stay in his native place, wherefrom he had been making all correspondence with regard to his disability compensation. Prima facie, therefore, considering all the facts together, a part or fraction of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court where he received a letter of refusal disentitling him from disability compensation. 19. Considering the entire facts of the case narrated hereinbefore including the interim order11 passed by the High Court, in our considered opinion, the writ petition ought not to have been dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. As noticed above, at the time when the writ petition was heard for the purpose of grant of interim relief, the respondents instead of raising any objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction opposed the prayer on the ground that the appellant-writ petitioner was offered an amount of Rs 2.75 lakhs, but he refused to accept the same and challenged the order granting severance compensation by filing the writ petition. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.” 7. In the present case, the part of cause of action has arisen in the State of Uttarakhand where the petitioner is residing and the correspondences were entered into with the respondents. The petitioner’s right to get family pension infringed in the State of Uttarakhand. 8. In the present case, the part of cause of action has arisen in the State of Uttarakhand where the petitioner is residing and the correspondences were entered into with the respondents. The petitioner’s right to get family pension infringed in the State of Uttarakhand. 8. Respondent No.4 has also taken up the matter with respondent Nos.1 to 3 and requested the respondent No.2 to transfer the Special Seal Authority to the Office of Accountant General (Audit & Account) Uttarakhand, for granting the family pension. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to grant the family pension in favour of the petitioner from due date, within a period of ten weeks from today.