Patna High Court

Sanjay Kumar SinghversusUnion of India

Decided: 31 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

The petition is not maintainable before the Patna High Court as the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh, and the petition is therefore dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, a Head Constable of the Border Security Force, challenged his retirement on the ground of unsuitability under Rule 26 of the BSF Rules, 1969 and Rule 40 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, seeking a regular pension. The High Court examined a preliminary objection raised by the Union of India that the cause of action arose entirely in Chhattisgarh, where the competent authority had passed the retirement orders. The Court held that because the entire dispute originated within the territorial jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh, the Patna High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate court in Chhattisgarh within 90 days. The order disposes of the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the Patna High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the retirement order of a BSF employee whose cause of action arose in Chhattisgarh?
Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court?

Legislation cited

BSF Rules, 1969
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972

Subjects

jurisdiction
writ petition
service law
retirement
BSF
pension
maintainability
civil writ jurisdiction

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9289 of 2022
                 ======================================================
                 Sanjay Kumar Singh S/o Umeshwar Prasad Singh Resident of Village Patori,
                 P.S. Satar Katiya, District- Saharsa, working as Reg. No. 94003150, Rank
                 Head Constable/G.D. Gulm F, 53th Bn, Boarder Security Force, COB Raohat,
                 (Police Station), Post Kolar, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                           ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                  Versus
           1.    Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Jaisalmer
                 House, 26, Mansingh Road, New Delhi- 110011.
           2.    The Director General, Baorder Security Force, Block No.10, CGO Complex,
                 New Delhi- 110003.
           3.    D.G. Comnd. HQSPL OPS (BSF) D-II/21Q22, Sec. 17, Atal Nagar, New
                 Raipur, Chhatishgarh.
           4.    The IG, B.S.F. (Spl Ops) CG Old Moh, Sector-4, Bhilai, Durg, Chhatisgarh,
                 490001.
           5.    The DIG BSF, Sector-6, Bhilai, Chhttisgarh, 490006.
           6.    The Commandant, 53 Bn. BSF, Durgkondal, Distt Kanker, Uttar Baster,
                 Chhattisgarh, Pin- 494669.
           7.    The Director General of B.S.F. Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

                                                                         ... ... Respondent/s

                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr.Madhav Jha, Advocate
                 For the UoI            :      Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. CGC
                                               Mr. Arvind Kumar, CGC
                                               Mr. Avinash Kumar, CGC

                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   31-01-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   counsel for the State.

                                 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging

                   the order dated 10.07.2021 as well as the order dated

                   31.01.2022, whereby the petitioner, who was an employee of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9289 of 2022(3) dt.31-01-2026
                                            2/3




          Border Security Force (BSF), has been retired on the ground of

          unsuitability for service under Rule 26 of the BSF Rules, 1969

          read with Rule 40 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, with

          compulsory pension at the rate of compensation pension, i.e.,

          50% of the emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is

          higher, along with other admissible pensionary benefits, without

          considering the case of the petitioner and his reply to the show-

          cause notice.

                      3. Learned counsel for the Union of India has raised a

          preliminary objection submitting that the petitioner was

          admittedly an employee of the BSF Headquarters at

          Chhattisgarh and that the impugned orders were passed by the

          competent authority at Chhattisgarh. Therefore, the present writ

          petition is not maintainable before this Court, as the entire cause

          of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of

          Chhattisgarh.

                      4. In view of the aforesaid submission, since the cause

          of action relating to the petitioner has arisen within the State of

          Chhattisgarh, the present writ petition stands disposed of with

          liberty to the petitioner to avail his appropriate remedy before

          the competent court at Chhattisgarh within a period of 90 days

          from the date of this order.
            Patna High Court CWJC No.9289 of 2022(3) dt.31-01-2026
                                                        3/3




                                  5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the

                      present writ petition stands disposed of.



                                                 (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-

U

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…