As noted above, the learned single Judge has also observed that Petitioner ought to have filed the writ petition in Jharkhand High Court where his earlier writ petition was pending. The earlier writ petition which was initially filed in 2006 in Patna High Court was for refund of the amount as noted above. After dismissal of the writ petition by Patna High Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, Shri B.N. Mishra had filed a Writ Petition No. 4930 of 2013 in Jharkhand High Court for the relief which was claimed in Writ Petition No. 13955 of 2006. As noted above, the cause of action for filing the Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 was entirely different. Stoppage of pension and asking for refund of more than Rs. 08 lakhs amount had serious adverse effect on the Petitioner, who was staying at his native place Darbhanga. A retired employee, who is receiving pension, cannot be asked to go to another court to file the writ petition, when he has a cause of action for filing a writ petition in Patna High Court. For a retired employee convenience is to prosecute his case at the place where he belonged to and was getting pension. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on principle of forum non conveniens has no substance.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 3630 of 2020
Decided On: 05.11.2020
Shanti Devi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ.
