Judgment :- 1. The question as to whether an employee, who was given employment as against the vacancy earmarked for either Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates, could be denied the terminal benefits on completion of the service, solely on the ground that the community certificate upon which the employment was secured, is under verification. 2. The facts of the present case are as follows:- According to the petitioner, he was issued with a community certificate by Deputy Tahsildar, Pollachi dated 26.7.1977 stating that he belonged to "Konda Reddy", a Scheduled Tribe Community. On the strength of that certificate, he secured employment in the State Bank of India in the year,1978. After promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and later Special Assistant, he attained the age of superannuation on 31.3.2011. At the time when he made a request for settlement of his terminal benefits, by the impugned communication dated 1.4.2011, the petitioner was informed that it would not be possible for the Bank to pay the retirement benefits, till his community status is confirmed by the appropriate authority. In that communication, it was also stated that the Provident Fund Contribution made by the petitioner will be paid to him after adjusting the dues, if any, to the Bank and the Bank's contribution towards Provident Fund, Gratuity and pension will be kept in the Interest Bearing Account. 3. The said order is questioned in this writ petition on the ground that though the petitioner joined the service of the first respondent Bank as early as in the year 1978, so far, the community certificate has not been cancelled and therefore, the first respondent Bank is not justified in denying payment of terminal benefits. The impugned order is also questioned on one more ground namely, the regulations of the Bank do not empower withholding of the terminal benefits, once an employee is allowed to retire, particularly, in the absence of any enquiry relating to misconduct is pending against him. 4. We have heard Mr.V. Vijay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr.P.D.Audikesavalu, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent No.2. 5. 4. We have heard Mr.V. Vijay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr.P.D.Audikesavalu, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent No.2. 5. Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the order of this Court made in W.P.No.18214 of 2010 dated 10.12.2010, in and by which, the claim of similarly placed employees of Chennai Port Trust was accepted by this Court and ultimately, the Chennai Port Trust was directed to pay the terminal benefits, submitted that the said order was confirmed by the Apex Court by order dated 3.5.2011 in S.L.P.No.13284 of 2011. 6. As the issue arises frequently, we are inclined to deal with the question elaborately. 7. The general rule is that, the vacancies earmarked for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates should be made available only to such of those candidates, who belong to that community and for that purpose, they should produce the community certificate issued by the competent authority. On the part of the employer once the employment is given on the strength of the community certificate produced by the employee, it should be forwarded to the competent authority for verification. If the employer has made a request for verification as to the genuineness of the certificate immediately showing his bonafides, it is for the State to explain as to why such verification process has not been completed. The payment of terminal benefits in respect of an employee, who has attained the age of superannuation while the community certificate is under verification depends upon the facts of each case. 8. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 1469 = (2004) 2 SCC 105 has observed as follows: "19. It was then contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that since the appellant has rendered about 27 years of service, the order of dismissal be substituted by an order of compulsory retirement or removal from service to protect the pensionary benefits of the appellant. We do not find any substance in this submission as well. The rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. The appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a fraud. We do not find any substance in this submission as well. The rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. The appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a fraud. His appointment to the post was void and non est in the eye of the law. The right to salary or pension after retirement flows from a valid and legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on a false caste certificate. A person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for the post meant for a Scheduled Caste, thus depriving a genuine Scheduled Caste candidate of appointment to that post, does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor would the court be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate by playing a fraud. No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an individual acquired a status by practising fraud." 9. Keeping the above law laid down by the Apex Court in mind, the facts of this case should be considered. Before considering the facts of the present case, the submission of Mr.V. Vijay Shankar placing reliance on the order of this Court in W.P.No.18214 of 2010 dated 10.12.2010 should be referred to. The petitioner in that case has obtained a certificate from the Tahsildar, Mettur that he belonged to "Konda Reddy" - Scheduled Tribe Community and on the strength of the said certificate, joined Chennai Port Trust in the year 1980 and also retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.2010. The petitioner in that case has obtained a certificate from the Tahsildar, Mettur that he belonged to "Konda Reddy" - Scheduled Tribe Community and on the strength of the said certificate, joined Chennai Port Trust in the year 1980 and also retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.2010. The genuineness of the said certificate was sought to be verified by the employer only after a period twelve years. On the basis of the request, a notice of enquiry was issued to the petitioner by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the said notice came to be questioned in the Writ Petition, which was ultimately dismissed with a direction to the competent committee to complete the enquiry by an order dated 19.1.2009. Even thereafter, the the competent authority has not passed any orders. Therefore, on the ground of delay on the part of the employer in forwarding the request for verification as well as by competent authority to dispose of the proceeding till the employee attained the age of superannuation, this Court had accepted the contention of the petitioner therein and allowed the writ petition with a direction to the Chennai Port Trust to pay the terminal benefits. 10. Similar question came up before this Court in W.P.No.23650 of 2005. The petitioner in that case was employed in Food Corporation of India in the year 1981 and retired some time during the year 2004 on his request for voluntary retirement. His request for payment of terminal benefits was rejected by an order dated 3.5.2005. When that order was questioned, having noticed that the there was no delay on the part of the employer in making the request for verification of the Community certificate to the concerned authority and that enquiry proceedings has been pending, for no fault of the employer, no direction could be issued for payment of terminal benefits. Accordingly the writ petition was rejected with a direction to the competent authority to pass orders within the particular period. 11. Keeping the above two orders of this Court in mind, the present case has to be considered. The facts of the present case is distinguishable to the facts of the case in W.P.No.18214 of 2010. Accordingly the writ petition was rejected with a direction to the competent authority to pass orders within the particular period. 11. Keeping the above two orders of this Court in mind, the present case has to be considered. The facts of the present case is distinguishable to the facts of the case in W.P.No.18214 of 2010. As we have pointed out, in that case there was no order cancelling the community certificate, as the petitioner came even at the stage of issuance of notice by the Revenue Divisional Officer calling for enquiry and this Court having found that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction, directed the competent authority to verify the genuineness of the community certificate. Though that order was passed in the year 2009, till the petitioner attained the age of superannuation, the competent authority has not passed any orders and therefore, the grievance of the petitioner in that case was accepted. 12. In this case, the undisputed fact is that the petitioner's community certificate was sought to be verified by the respondent State Bank of India immediately and there was an enquiry at the level of the Sub Collector, Pollachi, who submitted a report dated 13.9.1988 stating that the petitioner does not belong to "Konda Reddy" - a Scheduled Tribe Community. Based on the said report, the District Collector, Coimbatore issued a notice of enquiry as early as on 4.10.1998 calling upon the petitioner to appear for enquiry. The petitioner questioned the said order in W.P.No.13042 of 1988 on the ground that the District Collector was not competent to verify the geniuses of the community certificate. The writ petition was allowed with a direction to conduct fresh verification. Subsequently, the two Member District Level Vigilance Committee issued a notice dated 3.5.2001 calling upon the petitioner to appear for enquiry. That was also questioned by the petitioner on the ground that the two Member Committee has no jurisdiction and has obtained an interim order on 3.8.2001 in W.P.M.P.No.20810 of 2001 in W.P.No.14031 of 2001 staying all further proceedings with regard to the verification of the community certificate. It is true that this Court disposed of the writ petition as early as on 26.7.2005 directing the concerned Committee to pass orders on the ground that the two Member Committee has no jurisdiction and without prejudice to the right of the respondent to take action. 13. It is true that this Court disposed of the writ petition as early as on 26.7.2005 directing the concerned Committee to pass orders on the ground that the two Member Committee has no jurisdiction and without prejudice to the right of the respondent to take action. 13. Mr.R. Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that the enquiry is still pending before the District Level Vigilance Committee. In this background, in our opinion, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.18214 of 2010 cannot be made applicable, particularly in the light of the judgment of the Supreme in R. Vishwanatha Pillai cited supra. 14. In view of the above, we are not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. 15. After the order of the Division Bench, admittedly, no notice has been issued by the District Level Vigilance Committee and as on today, the said Committee is not competent to go into that issue. That power has now been vested with the State Level Scrutiny Committee in view of G.O.Ms.No.108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 12.9.2007. 16. In view of the above, we direct the District Level Vigilance Committee, Coimbatore to forward all the records pertaining to the verification of the community certificate of the petitioner within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order either from the petitioner or from the first respondent. On receipt of the records, the State Level Scrutiny Committee shall pass orders in a period of two months therefrom. The payment of terminal benefits to the petitioner would depend upon the order that may be passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. As the matter is pending from the year 2005 and the petitioner has also retired on attaining the age of superannuation the time fixed by this Court shall be strictly adhered to by the State Level Scrutiny Committee and the matter has to be considered on preference basis. No costs.