SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a BSF constable’s petition challenging his voluntary retirement, holding that the dispute arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal, in a judgment pronounced on September 30, held that the petitioner’s voluntary retirement application was submitted outside Jammu and Kashmir and the order accepting it was passed at Tura in Meghalaya.
The petition was filed by Khursheed Ahmad Khan, who had challenged the June 16, 2023 order accepting his voluntary retirement from the BSF and striking him off the strength of his unit with effect from the same day.
Khan had contended that he was compelled to seek voluntary retirement after the BSF revoked permission granted to him in January 2018 to maintain a neatly trimmed beard. He alleged that the permission was cancelled with immediate effect on June 16, 2023, and that his retirement application was accepted on the same day.
He subsequently sought to withdraw his voluntary retirement request, but the application was rejected on July 5, 2023. He also alleged that his representations against the cancellation of permission to maintain a beard and his subsequent representation to the Director General, BSF, were not favourably considered.
The BSF disputed the allegations, stating that Khan had voluntarily sought retirement and had expressly denied being under any duress or compulsion when he was questioned by the Commandant.
According to the respondents, Khan had cited his mother’s illness and his own inability to endure difficult service conditions in view of his medical condition as reasons for seeking voluntary retirement. The competent authority, they said, had relaxed the three-month notice requirement and accepted his request with immediate effect.
The respondents further stated that Khan had been permitted to keep a neatly trimmed beard in 2018, but the permission was revoked on June 16, 2023 after he was found with a long, free-flowing beard and allegedly refused to trim it. The BSF maintained that the action was taken to maintain discipline and decorum in the Force.
The High Court, however, did not enter into the merits of these rival claims.
Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the presence of the Inspector General, BSF, Kashmir, as a respondent gave the court jurisdiction, Justice Oswal observed that the officer had no nexus with the dispute. The court noted that the relevant respondent was the Inspector General, BSF, Shillong.
The court also rejected the contention that the Director General, BSF, New Delhi, being arrayed as a respondent was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the High Court.
Referring to Article 226 of the Constitution and earlier judgments, the court held that territorial jurisdiction depends on whether the cause of action, wholly or partly, arose within the jurisdiction of the concerned High Court.
The court observed that merely receiving a copy of an order in Jammu and Kashmir does not constitute a material or integral part of the cause of action sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction.
“[N]o cause of action has accrued to the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court,” the court held.
The High Court accordingly dismissed the petition, while leaving Khan free to approach the jurisdictional court for redressal of his grievances.
