2026:JHHC:8481 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1802 of 2026 ----- Mukesh Yadav, S/o Shri Rameshwar Yadav, Resident of Village- Jigarawan, P.O. Jigarawan, P.S. Maharajganj, District-Siwan State (Bihar) present resident of Ashok Nagar, Ranchi P.O. & P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi. ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The Secretary, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India, office situated at Sharam Shakti Marg, New Delhi, P.O. + P.S. New Delhi, District-New Delhi, 100001. 2. The Chief Managing Director, WAPCOS Ltd. Office Situated at 501, WAPCOS Ltd., WAPCOS Office, Kailash Building K.G. Marg, Barakhambha Road, P.O. + P.S. Barakhambha Road, New Delhi. 3. The Deputy Chief Manager (HR), WAPCOS Ltd. office situated at Plot No.76-C Institutional Area, Sector-18 Gurugram 122015, P.O. & P.S. & District-Gurugram, Haryana. 4. Project Manager, WAPCOS Ltd. INFS-II Division, Office Situated at House No.147, Old A.G. Colony, Kadru, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). 5. The Assistant Manager (P&A) WAPCOS Limited, Regional office, Kerala, office situated at Trivandrum under INFS-III Division, P.O. & PS. District-Trivandrum, Kerala. … Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate …...... 02/ 23.03.2026: A preliminary objection has been raised regarding the maintainability of this writ petition before this Court on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Counsel for both the parties argued at length on the point of maintainability. 2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- i. Issue an appropriate writ including a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to forthwith release the unpaid salary of the petitioner from August, 2025 till date together with admissible interest. 2026:JHHC:8481 2 ii. Issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure-11, Page No. 60), whereby the petitioner’s joining at Trivandrum Inf-III Division was refused on the ground of alleged budgetary constraint. iii. Issue writ of certiorari for quashing the office order dated 26.12.2025 (Annexure-12, Page No. 61) issued by D.C.M. (HR) of WAPCOS Limited, whereby the engagement of the petitioner stated to be stands discontinued automatically by efflux of time and no further extension has been approved. iv. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as continuing in service pursuant to extension order dated 16.07.2025 and permit him to discharge duties either at Ranchi Office or at any other appropriate place. v. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for regularization/ absorption in accordance with applicable rules, policy and law in view of his continuous service of more than 12 years. vi. Pending disposal of the writ petition, direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to work and release current provision salary. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Messenger at WAPCOS Limited after applying against an advertised post as a contractual employee. After joining, his contract was extended several times. He was transferred from Raipur (Chhattisgarh) to Ranchi (Jharkhand) in 2015. Over the years, his contract continued, and in 2024, he was upgraded from a contractual employee to a pay scale employee with salary and allowances. In 2025, the petitioner was transferred from Ranchi to Trivandrum, Kerala. He accepted the transfer orders and went to Kerala, but was not allowed to join at the Trivandrum office, citing budgetary constraints. He returned to Ranchi and requested to work there, but the company did not allow him to resume duty on the ground he was transferred. Later, by an office order dated 26.12.2025 his contractual service was terminated w.e.f. 31.12.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The impugned order dated 17.10.2025, refusing joining of the petitioner is issued by Trivendrum Office. Further, he submits that termination order was 2026:JHHC:8481 3 issued by DCM (HR) of WAPCOS Limited at Gurgaon. Thus, he submits that the instant writ petition is not maintainable as no cause of action has arisen within its territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case falls within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Court. He further submits that the petitioner was transferred to Ranchi from Raipur on 28.02.2015 and has served diligently and satisfactorily over several years. Thereafter, he was transferred vide office order dated 16.07.2025 from Ranchi to Trivendrum Office under INFS III Division, but his joining was not accepted at Trivendrum. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.12.2025, he was terminated from service w.e.f. 31.12.2025. Since the petitioner is residing in Ranchi and in his impugned termination order, the address of the petitioner is of Ranchi, hence, this court has jurisdiction to decide the case of petitioner. 6. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.10.2025 which is issued by the Trivendrum office, Kerala, by which he was denied his joining at Trivendrum INF III Division. He has also challenged the order dated 26.12.2025, which is issued by DCM (HR) of WAPCOS Limited, Gurgaon. Admittedly, the cause of action for the petitioner’s grievances has arisen outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In view of settled legal principles under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ petition must be filed in Court having territorial jurisdiction over the cause of action. Article 226 of the Constitution of India reads as under:- 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs. – (1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. 2026:JHHC:8481 4 (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. (3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without- (a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and (b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated. (4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. A. Shainamol reported in (2021) 20 SCC 267 in paragraph 50 has held as under- 50. The Full Bench of the jurisdictional High Court in a judgment in Nakul Deo Singh v. Commandant was considering an original petition filed before the Kerala High Court by a Head Constable working in the Central Industrial Security Force Unit at Bokkaro Steel Plant. In the said case, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The applicant claimed that since the order of appellate authority was received within the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court, therefore, it will have the jurisdiction to entertain the original petition. The Court held as under : (SCC OnLine Ker para 29) “29. It appears to us that the decisions in Swaika Properties case [State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties, (1985) 3 SCC 217] and the decision of the Supreme Court and that of the High Court subsequent thereto clearly establish that the receipt of communication by itself does not constitute a fact in the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action. At best receipt of the 2026:JHHC:8481 5 order or communication only gives the party a right of action based on the cause of action arising out of the action complained of. When that action complained of takes place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and an appeal therefore is dismissed by an authority located outside the jurisdiction of the High Court cause of action wholly arises outside the jurisdiction of the High Court and Article 226(2) of the Constitution cannot be invoked to sustain a writ petition in this High Court on the basis that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court, merely because the appellate order communicated from the seat of the appellate authority was received while the petitioner was residing or working within the jurisdiction of this court Acceptance of the argument that the situs of the receipt of the order will determine the jurisdiction can lead to a position where a litigant would be in a position to choose his own court for the purpose of redressal of his grievance. All that he need do is to move over to a particular place for receiving the communication from the appellate authority and then approach the High Court of that place with a plea that that court had jurisdiction because the order of the appellate authority was served on him while he was residing within the jurisdiction of that High Court. No litigant can have a right to choose the court for seeking relief and the mere introduction of Clause 2 of Article 226 does not alter that position.” 51. It may be noticed that the Union had not raised objection about the entertainment of an original application filed by the applicant before the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It appears that the applicant filed an application before the Ernakulam Bench for the reason that she was permanent resident in the State or may be for the reason, the order of allocation was received by her in the State of Kerala. Both of these reasons do not give rise to part of cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Ernakulam Bench of Tribunal. At this stage, the applicant is not being non-suited on the ground that the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. 7. In this case, the petitioner was transferred from Ranchi to Trivandrum. He has not challenged the order of transfer. He is aggrieved by the order passed in Trivandrum, who refused to allow the petitioner to join. The cause of action of such refusal arose at Trivandrum. Further, the petitioner contract was terminated at Gurgaon. At that point of time, it cannot be said that the petitioner was posted at Ranchi. Thus, the cause of action also does not arise at Ranchi. 2026:JHHC:8481 6 8. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case, I find that no cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed due to want of territorial jurisdiction. It will be open to the petitioner to approach an appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 23rd March, 2026 R.S./ Uploaded on 30/03/2026