Part Cause Of Action Arises Where Authority Passes Order: Delhi High Court Restores Plea Against PNB
The Delhi High Court has held that a part of the cause of action arises at the place where the impugned order is passed, restoring a writ petition filed against Punjab National Bank (PNB) after setting aside a Single Judge's order that had declined to entertain it on jurisdictional grounds.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was hearing an intra-court appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition filed by a former bank employee seeking compassionate allowance under the Punjab National Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995.
The appellant, who had been removed from service in 2013, had earlier approached the Gauhati High Court. While his claim for pensionary benefits was rejected, he was granted liberty to apply for compassionate allowance.
Pursuant to this, he submitted an application, which was rejected by the competent authority of PNB through an order dated September 25, 2025 passed in New Delhi.
Challenging this rejection, the appellant approached the Delhi High Court. However, the Single Judge dismissed the petition, observing that the order had been passed in compliance with directions of the Gauhati High Court and therefore ought to have been challenged there, also cautioning against forum shopping.
Disagreeing, the Division Bench held that since the impugned order had been passed by the competent authority at PNB's headquarters in New Delhi, at least a part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
“Though it is true that the order dated 25.09.2025 was passed in compliance of the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of Gauhati High Court, however, since the authority passing the order dated 25.09.2025 is in New Delhi, as such at least part of cause of action can be said to have accrued to the appellant for challenging the said order dated 25.09.2025 within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court,” it said.
The Court emphasised that since the order impugned before the learned Single Judge in the proceedings of the writ petition dated 25.09.2025 was passed by the Competent Authority at New Delhi, “as such by any state of imagination, it cannot said that the cause of action had not accrued to the appellant to challenge the said order before this Court.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the Single Judge's order and restored the writ petition for consideration on merits.
Appearance: Mr. N. C. Gupta, Mr. R. Vasudevan, Mr. S. Bhardwaj, Advs. for Appellant; Ms. Kittu Bajaj, Adv. for Respondents
Case title: Subodh Chandra Saha v. Punjab National Bank And Anr
Case no.: LPA 134/2026