IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 15713 of 2007(U) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------------- P.P.JOSE, BRANCH MANAGER (RETIRED), LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, PALAKATTU HOUSE, THIRUVAMKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JACOB (JOSE) SMT.RESHMI POULOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, YOGAKSHEMA, JEEVAN BHIMA MARG., POST BOX.NO.19953, MUMBAI-400 021, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, YOGAKSHEMA, JEEVAN BHIMA MARG., MUMBAI-400 021. 3. THE ZONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600 002. 4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, JEEVAN PRAKASH, M.G.ROAD, POST BOX NO.1133, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN. 5. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ARCOT ROAD, VELLORE-632 004. ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN FOR R1 TO 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON 22/08/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.15713/2007 U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 14/06/2005 OF THE MEDICAL REFEREE ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SENIOR MEDICAL OFFICER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 11/11/2005 FOR SICK LEAVE. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DTD. 18/11/2005 ISSUED FROM THE AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, TRIPUNITHURA. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 24/11/2005 ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 28/11/2005 RECEIVED FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30/11/2005 RECEIVED FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 5/12/2005 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 5/12/2005 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 21/12/2005 RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 24/12/2005 SUBMITTED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/12/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 17/01/2006 REQUESTING FOR EXTENSION OF SICK LEAVE. Kss ..2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.15713/2007 U EXT.P14: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DTD. 17/01/2006. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT DTD. 1/02/2006. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 15/02/2006 RECEIVED FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 16/02/2006 ADDRESSED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P18: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 28/03/2006 RECEIVED FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P19: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 3/04/2006 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P20: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10/04/2006 ADDRESSED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P21: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 21/10/2007 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P22: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/07/2006 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P23: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 18/05/2006 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P24: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 12/12/2006 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P25: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 8/08/2006 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R(A): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 11/11/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R(B): COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12/11/2005 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15713 of 2007 U ------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner was a Branch Manager in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He retired from service under the voluntary retirement scheme with effect from 1.4.2006. The grievance sought to be highlighted in the writ petition relates to what he calls as “the inaction and refusal on the part of the respondents” in the matter of disbursal of the pay and allowances and other consequential benefits due to him for the period from 11.11.2005 to 31.3.2006. 2. While working as the Manager in the Cochin Branch, the petitioner was transferred as the Branch Manager to Pondicherry by order dated 4.5.2005. He challenged the order of transfer in W.P.(C)No.16991/05. Learned single Judge granted a stay. The petitioner then continued to work in the Cochin Branch itself. While so, the petitioner developed certain illness and he submitted an application for sick leave. W.P.(C) No.16991/05 was allowed and the order of transfer to Pondicherry was quashed. But W.P.(C).NO.15713/07 :: 2 :: respondents 1 to 4 filed W.A.No.2021/05 and the appeal was allowed by judgment dated 11.11.2005. Apparently, the petitioner was, at that point of time, an in-patient in the hospital. This continued till 14.11.2005. The petitioner's leave application, Ext.P5 dated 24.11.2005, was met with Ext.P6 letter from the 4th respondent, the Senior Divisional Manager, M.G.Road at Cochin, stating that the petitioner had been relieved of his duties as Branch Manager at Cochin and his leave application has been forwarded to the Senior Manager, Divisional Office at Vellore. At the same time, he received Ext.P7 communication from the 4th respondent intimating him that the leave has not been sanctioned. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P9 application dated 5.12.2005 before the Zonal Manager at Chennai for voluntary retirement from service. Ultimately, the petitioner did not join at Pondicherry and he submitted Ext.P13 application for extension of sick leave. The petitioner received Ext.P16 communication from the 5th respondent, the Senior Divisional Manager at Vellore rejecting his W.P.(C).NO.15713/07 :: 3 :: request for sick leave and intimating him that the period of absence will be treated as unauthorised absence warranting disciplinary action. This was followed by Ext.P17 application by the petitioner seeking a further extension of his sick leave. This was addressed to the 5th respondent at Vellore. In the meanwhile, by Ext.P18 dated 28.3.2006, the petitioner was intimated that his request for voluntary retirement from services of the Corporation with effect from 1.4.2006 has been accepted. Apparently, it was also decided then that his absence from 14.11.2005 till the date of relief would be treated as extraordinary leave on loss of pay. This action on the part of the respondents has been essentially challenged in this writ petition. 3. After the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner had moved Ext.P21 comprehensive representation before the Chairman of the Life Insurance Corporation, challenging the action of the 3rd respondent (According to the respondents, the said decision was taken by the 3rd respondent) to treat the petitioner's W.P.(C).NO.15713/07 :: 4 :: absence from 14.11.2005 to 31.3.2006 as extraordinary leave without allowance. The petitioner has requested the Chairman by Ext.P21 representation, to sanction the leave application sent by him for the period from 11.11.2005 to 31.3.2006 and also to direct that the pay and allowances for the said period be disbursed to him along with the vehicle insurance premium and productivity linked lump sum incentive. Though Exts.P7, P16, P18 and P19 communications are challenged in this writ petition, the petitioner has made it clear in a subsequent affidavit filed by him, that he confines his prayers made in the writ petition for a direction to the Chairman to consider and pass orders on Ext.P21. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Apart from resisting the petitioner's challenge against Exts.P7, P16, P18 and P19 on merits, the respondents have taken a firm contention that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition or issue any direction to the respondents in the writ petition as such. W.P.(C).NO.15713/07 :: 5 :: 5. The contention is that Exts.P18 and P19 are issued by the Senior Divisional Manager at Vellore, the 5th respondent, who is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court. The challenge against Ext.P7 does not survive because it is only an intimation requiring the petitioner to report for duty at Pondicherry and at any rate, the petitioner's subsequent application for voluntary retirement from service has been accepted by Ext.P18. Insofar as to the direction to consider Ext.P21 is concerned, it is contended that Ext.P21 submitted before the Chairman, would, at the best, be treated as a revision before the Chairman challenging Exts.P18 and P19 and therefore, the power of the Chairman is only to revise Exts.P18 and P19. The chairman, even if he is directed to act as the revisional authority, would only be exercising revisional powers in relation to the action taken by the 3rd respondent, who is admittedly beyond the jurisdiction of this court. 6. It is further contended that no part of the cause of action for this writ petition W.P.(C).NO.15713/07 :: 6 :: can be stated to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Exts.P18 and P19 are admittedly passed by the 5th respondent, who is beyond the jurisdiction of this court. Insofar as Ext.P21 is concerned, the Chairman should be considered as having his seat of authority at the place where the registered office of the Corporation is situated and he would be amenable to the jurisdiction of this court only in relation to cases where he is required to exercise his powers of revision otherwise available to him under the Statutory Regulations in relation to orders passed by authorities who are within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. 7. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.George Jacob and learned counsel for Life Insurance Corporation Sri.Easwaran. 8. The parties referred to the following decisions in support of their contentions. (1) Khajoor singh v. Union of India {AIR 1961 SC 532} (2) Alchemist Limited v. State Bank of Sikkim {AIR 2007 SC 1812} W.P.(C).NO.15713/07 :: 7 :: (3) Nakul Deo Singh v. Deputy Commandant {1999(3) KLT 629} (4) Prakash v. Food Corporation of India {2007(4) KLT 895} 9. The question of territorial jurisdiction of this court in terms of Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India is considered and settled by the 7 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Khajoor singh v. Union of India {AIR 1961 SC 532}. Paragraph 14 is relevant in this context and it reads as follows: “The seat of a Government is sometimes mentioned in the Constitutions of various countries but many a time the seat is not so mentioned. But, whether the seat of a Government is mentioned in the Constitution or not, there is undoubtedly a seat from which the Government as such functions as a fact. What Art.226 requires is residence or location as a fact and if therefore there is a sear from which the Government functions as a fact even though that seat is not mentioned in the Constitution the High Court within whose territories that seat is located will be the High Court having jurisdiction under Art.226 so far as the orders of the Government as such are concerned. Therefore, the view taken in 1953 SCR 1144:[AIR 1953 SC 210] (supra) and 1954 SCR 738 (AIR 1954 SC 207) (supra) that W.P.(C).NO.15713/07 :: 8 :: there is two fold limitation on the power of the High Court to issue writs, etc. under Art.226, namely (i) the power is to be exercised 'throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction'. That is to say the writs issued by the Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction, and (ii) the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be 'within those territories” which clearly implies that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence or location within those territories, is the correct one.” 10. Reference could also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Alchemist Limited v. State Bank of Sikkim {AIR 2007 SC 1812}. 11. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that a portion of the cause of action must be deemed to have arisen within the jurisdiction of this court is concerned, I am of the view that this aspect also seems to be covered against the petitioner by the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Prakash v. Food Corporation of India {2007(4) ILR Kerala 73}. The following portion of the judgment is relevant: W.P.(C).NO.15713/07 :: 9 :: “It is therefore clear from the above- mentioned pronouncements of the Supreme Court that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the petitioner would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action. True even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the court, the court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. But as held in Kusum Ingots' case, that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.” 12. For all these reasons, I am of the view that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the writ petition. In such circumstances, it would not be proper to entertain the writ petition even for the limited relief now prayed for i.e. for a direction to the Chairman of the Corporation to consider and dispose of Ext.P21 representation. W.P.(C).NO.15713/07 :: 10 :: The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the instant writ petition as such. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//