K.S. Jamestin v. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 19080 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` K.S. JAMESTIN AGED 67 YEARS S/O. LATE K.S ZACHARIAS, "SAN MARIA", K.C ABRAHAM MASTER ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. BY ADVS. P.JAYABAL MENON REKHA AGARWAL JOSEPH V. GREGORY NAZRIN BANU ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY`** - **`2 THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED, DEENDAYAL URJA BHAWAN, 5, NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110 070, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR BY ADVS. SUVIN R MENON G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN NAIR) AKHIL SURESH`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN HEARD ON 20.10.2022, ``` ``` THE COURT ON 02.11.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 19080 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =** ## **W.P.(C).No.19080 of 2022** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2[nd] day of November, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The prayers in this writ petition are as follows: _“i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to release the Performance Related Pay (PRP) for the year 2013-14 and 2014-15 (4 months), amounting to Rs.20,52,923/- and the long service reward memento, amounting to 130 grams of 24 carat gold coins, both with compounded interest at the rate of 12% from 31.12.2014 till date of actual payment._ _i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to pay a consolidated damages of Rs.50,00,000/- to the petitioner as damages.”_ 2. The preliminary objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court to consider the issue was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and a statement of preliminary objection was filed on 03.08.2022 contending that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and that therefore this Court would not have jurisdiction to consider the writ petition. ``` WP(C) NO. 19080 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` 3. A reply to the same has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that Ext.P7 and P9 communications had been served on the petitioner at Ernakulam within the jurisdiction of this Court and that the petitioner had been specifically informed that the issue is under consideration of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by Ext.P9 communication dated 21.12.2021. It is contended that since the petitioner is a pensioner and is, admittedly, drawing pension in Kerala, the writ petition is maintainable and has to be considered here. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would place reliance on a decision of this Court in **Shanti Devi v. Union of India and other [(2020) 10 SCC 766]** while the learned counsel for the respondents relies on a Full Bench decision of this Court in **Registrar, Indian Maritime University, Chennai v. Dr.K.G.Viswanathan and another [2014 (4) KHC 451]** and the decision of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in **Manish Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and others [2020 KHC 3605]** . Reliance is also placed on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in **K.N.Surendran v.** ``` WP(C) NO. 19080 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` ## . **Secretary, Union of India and others [2007 (4) KHC 629]** 5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I notice that the petitioner, admittedly, retired from service on 31.07.2014 and was permitted to continue occupying his quarters at Delhi till 25.11.2014. The claim raised is with regard to release of performance related pay for the period 2013-14 and 2014-15 as well as the value of long term service reward memento with compound interest thereon. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner stood rejected by Ext.P3 proceedings of the DGM (HR) dated 11.09.2014. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ext.P3 was subject to approval of the CMD in order to comply with the instructions of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and settlement of terminal dues and it is only once Ext.P3 is approved that the order could have been implemented. However, a perusal of Ext.P3 itself would show that the CMD had approved the decisions on 11.09.2014 and affixed his signature showing such approval on 15.09.2014 in the order itself. Further action and compliance report ``` WP(C) NO. 19080 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` was required by the DGM (HR) on 16.09.2014. 7. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Ext.P5 representation was submitted by the petitioner on 10.06.2016 from Ernakulam to the CMD and pursuant to the reminder submitted, Ext.P7 communication was issued by the GM(HR) on 23.09.2016 stating that the release of the other dues claimed by the petitioner is under examination in consultation with the MOPNG and that the 2nd respondent will revert as soon as decision is taken. Ext.P9 communication dated 21.12.2021 which states that PRP was not paid due to communication received from Under Secretary, Government of India dated 28.05.2018 and that long service reward memento was not given due to the approval of the CMD, ONGC as also that the interest on gratuity had already been paid is relied on by the petitioner to contend that since the said communication was, admittedly, issued to the petitioner and received by him in Ernakulam, where he is presently staying, a significant part of the cause of action had arisen at Cochin and therefore the writ petition is maintainable here. ``` WP(C) NO. 19080 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` 8. However, a Full Bench of this Court has specifically considered the question of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India and has held that the receipt of a communication within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, by itself, would not confer jurisdiction on that High Court where the cause of action has arisen outside such jurisdiction. The same point is reiterated by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court as well. An exception exists in the case of pensionary claims of persons who are drawing their pension within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court concerned, even though they had worked outside such jurisdiction. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in **Shanti Devi v. Union of India and other** is specifically with regard to the deprivation or curtailment of pension which is being paid to the retired officer within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court concerned. In paragraph No.28 of the said judgment, it is observed as follows: _“ 28. The deceased petitioner was continuously receiving pension for the last 8 years in his savings bank account in State Bank of India, Darbhanga. The stoppage of pension of late_ ``` WP(C) NO. 19080 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` _B.N.Mishra affected him at his native place, he being deprived of the benefit of pension which he was receiving from his employer. The employer requires a retiring employee to indicate the place where he shall receive pension after his retirement. Late Shri.B.N.Mishra had opted for receiving his pension in State Bank of India, Darbhanga, State of Bihar, which was his native place, from where he was drawing his pension regularly for the last 8 years, stoppage of pension gave a cause of action, which arose at the place where the petitioner was continuously receiving the pension.”_ It was in the above circumstances that the principle of ‘forum conveniens’ was applied by the Apex Court and the claim of the widow of the pensioner was considered on merits. In the instant case, the dispute raised by the petitioner is not with regard to any pensionary claim that he is entitled to receive at his place of residence within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The claim specifically is with regard to the release of the amounts which had been declined by Ext.P3 communication. The claim is with regard to his employment with the 2[nd] respondent at New Delhi and the rejection is also by Ext.P3 which, according to the respondents, was communicated to the petitioner at Delhi. Even if all the contentions of the petitioner are accepted, therefore, the receipt of communications with regard to rejection of a claim, the cause of action in respect to ``` WP(C) NO. 19080 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` which has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court, by itself, would not confer jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. The mere fact that the petitioner had been sending representations from Kerala or that he had received communications in Kerala are therefore insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court going by the binding decisions of the Full Bench as well as the Apex Court referred to therein. In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. All the contentions of the parties are left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. Sd/- **ANU SIVARAMAN** **JUDGE** NP ``` WP(C) NO. 19080 OF 2022 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19080/2022`** |**`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS`**|| |---|---| |**`Exhibit P1`**|**`NOTICE DATED 31/07/2014 ISSUED BY 2ND`**| ||**`RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER`**| |**`Exhibit P2`**|**`EXPLANATION TO EXHIBIT P1, ISSUED BY THE`**| ||**`PETITIONER DATED 31/07/2014`**| |**`Exhibit P3`**|**`A WORKING PAPER BEARING REF. NO.`**| ||**`DDN/TB/E1/45001/2014 DATED 11/09/2014, ISSUED`**| ||**`BY THE DGM(HR)-EA TO DIRECTOR (HR) OF THE`**| ||**`RESPONDENT`**| |**`Exhibit P4`**|**`LETTER DATED 25/09/2021 ADDRESSED TO THE`**| ||**`PETITIONER BY THE ED-CHIEF ER OF THE 2ND`**| ||**`RESPONDENT`**| |**`Exhibit P5`**|**`REPRESENTATIONS DATED 10/06/2016 ISSUED BY`**| ||**`THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT`**| |**`Exhibit P6`**|**`REMINDER DATED 23/08/2016 ISSUED BY THE`**| ||**`PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT`**| |**`Exhibit P7`**|**`REPLY TO EXHIBITS P3 & P4, ISSUED BY THE`**| ||**`GM(HR)HEAD COORDINATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT`**| ||**`ON 23/09/2016`**| |**`Exhibit P8`**|**`REPRESENTATION DATED 07/11/2021 ISSUED BY THE`**| ||**`PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT`**| |**`Exhibit P9`**|**`REPLY TO EXHIBIT P6 BY ED-HEAD COORDINATION &`**| ||**`HEAD CORPORATE AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS OF`**| ||**`THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 21/12/2021`**| |**`Exhibit P10`**|**`REPRESENTATION DATED 04/05/2022, A COPY OF`**| ||**`WHICH WAS ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT`**| |**`Exhibit P11`**|**`THE OFFICE ORDER (54/2012) OF THE 2ND`**| ||**`RESPONDENT DATED 17/08/2012`**| |**`Exhibit P12`**|**`THE 'ONGC CONDUCT, DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL`**| ||**`RULES, 1994 (AMENDED-2011)`**| |**`Exhibit P13`**|**`APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED 09/03/2012 ISSUED TO`**| ||**`THE PETITIONER BY 1ST RESPONDENT`**| |**`Exhibit P14`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE POINTER ADVERTISEMENT ISSUED`**| ||**`BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN`**| ||**`A LEADING NEWSPAPER`**| |**`RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL`**||