Request for Disposal of Pending Representation Does Not Confer Territorial Jurisdiction Upon a Forum Lacking It

The petitioners, residents of Munger, Bihar, challenged an order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench.

Petitioner No. 2’s son, a railway employee, died in harness on 26.09.2016 following a train accident in Maharashtra while working at the Engineering Depot between Bhandup and NHR Stations.

Petitioner No. 2 applied for the compassionate appointment of her other son (Petitioner No. 1), which was rejected by the Mumbai Divisional Office on 22.06.2017 on the grounds that Petitioner No. 1 was not a dependent.

A subsequent mercy petition dated 03.06.2019 remained pending.

The CAT Patna Bench dismissed the petitioners' original application (O.A. No. 050/00761/2025) solely on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction, as the cause of action and employment occurred under the Central Railway, Mumbai.

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, erred in dismissing the application for want of territorial jurisdiction when the petitioners reside in Bihar.

2. Whether the Court can direct a respondent located outside its territorial jurisdiction to dispose of a pending representation.

The Court considered the principles of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which generally mandate that an application be filed where the cause of action arises or where the respondent resides.

While the court did not explicitly cite a statute, it relied on the procedural doctrine of "competent jurisdiction," noting that the appropriate forum for disputes involving the Central Railway, Mumbai, is the CAT Mumbai Bench.

The Court noted that while the petitioners reside in Bihar, the deceased worked and died in Maharashtra, and the rejection of the compassionate appointment was issued by the Mumbai authorities. Therefore, the CAT Patna Bench correctly identified that it lacked territorial jurisdiction.

However, the petitioners limited their prayer to a direction for the General Manager, Central Railway (Respondent No. 2), to decide their pending mercy petition dated 03.06.2019.

The respondents did not object to this limited direction despite the jurisdictional issue.

The Court exercised its discretionary power to ensure the administrative process was completed without further delay, while explicitly preserving the jurisdictional hierarchy by directing that any future litigation must be pursued in the Mumbai Bench.

The Court requested Respondent No. 2 (General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai) to consider the application dated 03.06.2019 and pass a reasoned, speaking order within six weeks.

The Court held that if the petitioners remain aggrieved after said order, they must approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, which holds the competent territorial jurisdiction.