IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 305 of 2003 Dharam Singh …......Petitioner. Versus Genera Manager, Allahabad Bank, Head Office, Allahabad Bank, 2, Netaji Subhash Marg, Kolkata (West Bengal) and others. ….…Respondent. Present:- None appears for the petitioner. Mr. U.P.S. Negi, Advocate for the respondent. Judgment Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. List revised. Case called out twice. None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. U.P.S. Negi, Advocate for the respondent is present. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:- “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on a suitable post according to his suitability and convenience being a handicapped employee and to give him all consequential benefits/dues. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to provide the petitioner pensionary / post retiremental benefits along with Medical expenses / medical leave salary. (iii) issue any other writ, rule, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) award the cost to the petitioner.” 3. One of the preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank is regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in the present writ petition, inasmuch as, no cause of action or even part of cause of action arises in the territory of the State of Uttarakhand. On perusal of the records, this Court finds that the petitioner was an employee in Allahabad Bank, Branch Lucknow. His tenure of service has not been in the territory of the State of Uttarakhand. Allahabad Bank has got his headquarter at Kolkata. 2 There is even no whisper in the writ petition as to how any cause of action or part of cause of action arises in the territory of Uttarakhand. On this ground alone, the writ petition cannot be entertained by the Court and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 4. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 29.10.2010 Rathour