'tl 4> 42)j AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1981 of2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 4. Gajaiian Wadner3<ar Aged about 37 years- S/o SM Baban Wadnerkar Post : Nowrozabad Colliery, Dist. Umaria (MP) VERSUS South Eastem Coalfields Limited 'Through its Chaimian-cum-Matiagmg Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (CG) Generai Manager Johilla Ai'ea Post : Nowrozabad Colliery, Dist. Umaria (MP) Sub Area Maiiager Post Nowrozabad Coiliery, Dist. Umaria (M.P.) Umou oflndia Tlirougli Director ofMmes Safety Jabalpur Region 1568 Napier Town Jabalpw(MP) WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTmJTION OF INDIA SB: Hoil'Me Shri Sattsh K. Agniholrl, J. Present: Shri Oary Mukliopadhyay, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri Paiikaj Agrawa!., Advocate forthe respoiideiit No. 1 to 3. Miss Shamiila'Smghai, Assistant Solicitor General forthe Umon ofIiidia/respoiideiitNo. 4. ORAI.ORDER (Passed on 24al day of June, 2008) 1. The petitioner, by this petition, seeks a direction to the respondents to make fiill payment ofhis salary froni the date ofhis dismissal onwards. Accordmg to leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner met with serious accident m course ofhis employment while working at Nowrozabad Circle, District Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh. The impugned order dated 24/27.03.2008 (Annexure P/l) was also issued bythe Sub .Area Manager, Nowrozabad, District Shahdol. ^ 2. The cause of action as a whole or m part has not arisen withm fhe jurisdiction oftiiis High Court as the accident took place wifhin the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Madhya Pradesh and the order impugned was also issued by the Sub Area Manager, Nowrozabad; situated withinthe State ofMadhya Pradesh. 3. !n the identical facts where the Head OtYice of fhe company was situated at Calcutta, West Beiigal and caiise ofaction arose m the State of Jharkhand, fhe Supreme Court, m ttie matter of Eastem Coalfields Ltd. asid others v. Kaiyan Baiierjee observed as under: '^13. Iii view of the decision of the Division Bench of the Calculla High Court that the etitire cause of action arose in Mugiiia area within the State of Jliarkliand, we are of the opimon that oiily because the head office of the appdlant Company was situated iii the State of West Bengai, the same by itself wil! aot corifer aoy jurisdiction upon the Calcutta. Migii Court, pamcyiariy when the head. offic.e had iiothiiig to do wilh tlie order of punishment passed against fhe respondeiit.'"' 4, Applying tlie well settled prmciples of iaw oo. cause. of actioii to the. facts ofthe case for the purpose of Artiole 226(2).oftlie Coiistitiition of Iii.dia, the cause of action arose withm the State of Madhya Pradesh. Tbus, fhis petition is not maintainable. 5< A.ccordin.gly- the petition is dismissed as not maintamable. However, liberty is reserved to ttie petition^ to approach the. appropriate High Court, ifso advised. SatishKAgnihotri Judge 8) 3 SCC 456