IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.389 of 2010 RAM NARAYAN SINGH, ARMY NO. 14541134 SON OF SRI KAILASH BIHAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MASUMGANJ, P.O.& P.S. CHAPRA, DISTT- SARAN AT CHAPRA…..PETITIONER………..APPELLANT Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. THE COMMANDANT-CUM-C.R.O.,E.M.E. CENTRE AND RECORDS, THROUGH O.I.C. PENSION CELL, SUB-AREA, ALLAHABAD. 3. THE CAPTAIN RECORDS OFFICER, O.I.C, E.M.C. RECORDS, SECUNDRABAD. 4. THE MAJOR SENIOR RECORDS OFFICER, FOR O.I.C. RECORDS, SECRUNDRABAD. 5. THE LT. COL. CHIEF RECORDS OFFICER, O.I.C. RECORDS, SECUNDRABAD. 6. THE A.C.D.A PENSION, ALLAHABAD………….RESPONDENTS………………..RESPONDENTS. ----------- For petitioner : Sri V.K. Singh, Advocate For respondents: Sri Sanjay Kumar Pandey (C.G.C) 3. 25-Mar-2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Union of India. 2. In view of the explanation for delay of 295 days in preferring this appeal, we have condoned the delay and considered the appeal on merits. 3. The learned Writ Court dismissed the writ petition bearing CWJC. No. 3460 of 2009 by order dated 23.3.2009 on the ground that cause of action has not arisen in Bihar specially when petitioner retired from service under the Indian Army in the year 1998 from Secundrabad and 2 earlier for fixing of his statutory pension he had preferred a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the year 2001 because of certain decision for payment of retirement benefits including provisional pension was taken from Allahabad on 15.12.2000. The writ petition filed in this Court is, in fact, only to assail the consequential orders issued by the competent authority at Allahabad on 26.3.2002 and again from Secundrabad on 26.10.2002. 4. In our view, no decision appears to have been taken by the impugned orders contained in Annexures- 4 and 5 which will create a cause of action in Bihar which is the home State of the appellant. Hence, without expressing our views on the issue of delay, we find no legal or factual errors in the order of the Writ Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 5. It may be mentioned here that learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad Vs. The Union of India & Ors, 2003(2) PLJR 151 in support of his contention that cause of action will arise at the native home of the appellant in Bihar because of 3 impugned order being communicated to him on that address. The said judgment was in respect of an order of dismissal and in that context the Division Bench held that such order becomes effective only when it is communicated or made known to the person concerned. That is not the situation in this case and hence, the said judgment is found to be of no help to the appellant, when the appellant had earlier preferred writ petition in Allahabad and at that time also his home address was same. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (C. M. Prasad, J. )