Place of Promotion Claims Grants Territorial Jurisdiction: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has fortified the rights of employees to seek judicial recourse at the place of their career's material progression, ruling that a High Court retains territorial jurisdiction over promotion disputes if the denial occurred while the employee was posted within its limits, regardless of subsequent transfers or retirement elsewhere.

A division bench comprising Justice R.I. Chagla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla dismissed the preliminary objections raised by a public sector undertaking regarding the maintainability of a writ petition filed by a retired employee. The Bombay High Court clarified that the 'cause of action' is inextricably linked to the site where the service benefits were purportedly due and the decisions regarding the same were made.

Key Takeaways

Fractional Cause of Action Suffices

Even if only a small fraction of the cause of action arises within a High Court's territory, it is sufficient to confer jurisdiction under Constitution of India, 1950, provided it is a material part of the dispute.

Situs of Employment during Dispute is Vital

Jurisdiction is determined by where the employee was situated at the time the contested rights (like promotions) accrued, not merely where they retired.

Corporate Decision-Making Centers Matter

If the department responsible for taking career-related decisions is located within the court's jurisdiction, it constitutes a material part of the cause of action.

Decisional Nexus and Territorial Authority

The Bombay High Court rejected the argument that the Petitioner’s transfer to Kochi in 2014 and subsequent retirement there in 2021 deprived the Bombay High Court of jurisdiction. The Petitioner sought promotions corresponding to the years 2002, 2007, and 2012—periods during which he was admittedly stationed in Mumbai. The Bench noted that "Applying the law laid down by the aforesaid Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, it is clear from the averments in the Petition and the relief sought in prayer (a) of the Petition that the Petitioner is seeking grant of promotion/upgradation/ progression to the Petitioner in 2002, 2007 and 2012 when the Petitioner was situated in Mumbai. Since the reliefs are sought by the Petitioner in respect of the period during which he was employed in Mumbai, the cause of action, or at least a part thereof, would definitely arise in Mumbai."

Ratio

Under Constitution of India, 1950, a High Court possesses territorial jurisdiction if a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action arises within its limits. In service matters involving promotion claims, the place where the employee was posted at the time the promotion was due, and the location of the decision-making authority, constitute such integral parts of the cause of action, which are not extinguished by the employee's subsequent transfer or retirement in another state.

Background

The Petitioner, an employee of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), filed a writ petition in 2017 seeking retrospective promotions from Job Group B to E for the years 2002, 2007, and 2012. BPCL raised a preliminary objection, contending that since the Petitioner was transferred to the Kochi Refinery in 2014 and retired there in 2021, only the Kerala High Court had jurisdiction. They argued that the 'situs of employment' at the time of filing and retirement was Kochi.

The Petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Mihir Desai, argued that the promotions were due while he was in Mumbai and that the Human Resource Department which took these decisions was also in Mumbai. He relied on Kusum Ingots & Alloys Limited vs. Union of India to argue that even a small fraction of the cause of action allows a High Court to exercise power under Article 226. The Court distinguished the present case from V.G. Jagdishan vs. Indofos Industries Limited (2015 CaseBase(DEL) 1830) and J. Balaji vs. The Hindu, New Delhi (2023 CaseBase(DEL) 6608), noting that those cases involved termination disputes where the cause of action clearly arose at the final place of posting. In contrast, this dispute pertained to specific periods of service spent in Mumbai. Consequently, the Bombay High Court held it had the jurisdiction to try the petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 263 OF 2017
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:22767-DB
Case Title: Nandakumar Menon Versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate a/w Adv. Rishika Agarwal i/b Adv. Moosa Izzat
For the Respondent(s): Adv. Anand Pai a/w Adv. Rahul Sanghvi, Adv. Nimish Daswani, Adv. Sahil Sayyed and Adv. Lavanya Panickar i/b M/s. Sanjay Udeshi and Co. for Respondent No.1

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 6541