JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Madhur Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and have perused the record.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed on a Class 57 post in Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the year 1965. On attaining the age of supperannuation, he retired from the service on 5.4.1995. He has filed this writ petition with a prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay him all his retiral benefit including gratuity, provident fund, pension etc. which he may be found entitled to after his retirement on 5.4.1995, regarding which, the petitioner claims that he has been sending representations to the respondent-Company from time to time.
3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Madhu Prakash, learned counsel for the contesting respondents that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. He has submitted that undisputedly the petitioner was initially appointed by the Respondent-Bharat Coking Coal Limited in district Dhanbad (in the State of Jharkhand) and has also retired from Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Barari Colliery, P.O. Bhullani Barari, Dhanbad (Jharkhand). It has been submitted that the cause of action could only be said to have arisen in Dhanbad, which falls in the State of Jharkhand.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since after his retirement, the petitioner has settled down in Azamgarh, which is in the State of U.P., from where the petitioner has been sending representations to the respondents-Company with regard to his grievances made in this writ petition, hence in view of judgment of this Court rendered in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Bhaskar Dutt Misra and Ors. 1986 Allahabad Weekly Cases 295, this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. Merely because after his retirement from service from. Dhanbad the petitioner has settled down within the jurisdiction of this Court and simply because he had been sending representations from Azamgarh to his erstwhile employer at Dhanbad, which is situate outside the territorial jurisdiction to this Court, in my view, this Court would not get jurisdiction to entertain and decide this writ petition. This view is supported by a recent decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and Ors. 2005 Allahabad Civil Journal 375. In the said case the misconduct had been committed by the petitioner therein at Calcutta and the Summary Court Martial was also held at Calcutta. The Court held that since the cause of action had arisen at Calcutta, therefore, the writ petition could not be entertained at Allahabad, where no part of the cause of action had arisen, although the petitioner therein was residing in Ballia, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court has also taken the view that a writ cannot be issued beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court vide K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commissioner, AIR 1954 SC 207 and in Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao, AIR 1953 SC 210.
5. Accordingly, in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner had worked at Dhanbad and the respondent-Company is also situated at Dhanbad, in my view, this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. No cause of action had arisen here and merely because the petitioner, after his retirement, is residing in Azamgarh which may fall within jurisdiction of this Court, this case cannot be heard and decided by this Court.
6. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.