High HRA Claim Arising Out of Prior Posting Does Not Confer Jurisdiction Under Doctrine of Forum Conveniens

The Petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the CISF, was posted at IGI Airport, Delhi from 2018 to 2022. During this period, 5% was deducted from his House Rent Allowance (HRA), which the Petitioner claims he was entitled to in full.

Currently posted in Bengaluru, Karnataka, the Petitioner submitted a representation for the release of the balance HRA, which was rejected via an Office Memorandum dated 08.12.2025 issued by the Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit, ASG Bengaluru.

The Petitioner challenged this rejection before the Delhi High Court on the grounds that the claim period related to his service in Delhi.

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution to entertain the petition when the impugned order was passed and the Petitioner is posted outside Delhi.

2. Whether the doctrine of forum conveniens applies to decline jurisdiction even if a fractional part of the cause of action arose in Delhi.

Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which requires that a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action must arise within a High Court's territorial jurisdiction.

The precedent of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254, which established the doctrine of forum conveniens, holding that a court may refuse to exercise discretionary jurisdiction if the integral part of the cause of action lies elsewhere, even if a small fraction arose within its territory.

The Court determined that the material and integral parts of the cause of action arose outside its jurisdiction. It noted that the Petitioner is presently stationed in Bengaluru and the impugned order rejecting his claim was issued by an authority in Bengaluru.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that his prior posting in Delhi (2018–2022) was a determinative factor, holding that the decision-making process culminating in the rejection took place entirely outside Delhi.

Furthermore, applying the doctrine of forum conveniens, the Court held that even if a "slender part" of the cause of action related to the past posting in Delhi, it was not appropriate to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction when the relevant authorities and the Petitioner are located elsewhere.

The Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to approach the competent court in the appropriate jurisdiction (Bengaluru) in accordance with the law. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.