Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1141 (MAD)

N. Balu v. Chairman, State Bank of India

2014-06-04

S.VAIDYANATHAN

body2014
ORDER : 1. Writ petition in W.P. No. 13346 of 2013 has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to forthwith disburse petitioner's retirement benefits of Rs. 9,24,291/- towards employer contribution of Provident Fund and Rs. 9,91,607/- towards Gratuity. Writ Petition in W.P. No. 19055 of 2013 has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to forthwith settle all terminal benefits of the petitioner with effect from the date of her retirement, i.e. from 30.04.2012. 2. The case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 13346 of 2013, as pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the petition is as follows: (i) The petitioner joined as Clerk/Cashier in the State Bank of India, on 26.05.1980 and after completion of probationary period, his services were confirmed on 26.11.1980 and he was promoted as Assistant Manager in Kolappalur from 1994 and thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Manager on 19.01.2004. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 29.02.2012. (ii) The petitioner stated that after retirement, he received his leave salary and Provident Fund, which is contributed by him, only after a lapse of four months and the employer's contribution towards provident fund and Gratuity has not been paid to him. Therefore, he approached the respondents and made repeated requests, but, there was no response from the respondents. Thereafter, he was informed on 26.09.2012 by the 3rd respondent/the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Panruti Branch, Cuddalore District that his provident fund (employer's contribution) amount of Rs. 9,24,291/- and Gratuity of Rs. 9,91,607/- are kept in a Fixed Deposit for a period of 10 years. Then, when he enquired the third respondent as to why the amount has not been disbursed to him and has been kept in the Fixed Deposit, the third respondent informed that there was some verification pending with regard to the community certificate. (iii) The petitioner further stated that after he joined service in the respondent Bank in the year 1980 under Scheduled Tribes Category, he had rendered unblemished service. However, in the year 1987, he received a notice from the Collector, Salem, calling upon him to appear for an enquiry with regard to verification of community certificate. (iii) The petitioner further stated that after he joined service in the respondent Bank in the year 1980 under Scheduled Tribes Category, he had rendered unblemished service. However, in the year 1987, he received a notice from the Collector, Salem, calling upon him to appear for an enquiry with regard to verification of community certificate. Immediately, he appeared before the respondent Bank and on verification, he found that his address was wrongly given and he also furnished his correct address and thereafter, he was informed that enquiry will be conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur. It was also informed that he will receive notice, if further enquiry is conducted. But, he did not receive any notice and he had retired from service in February 2012. He made a representation to the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, New Delhi, on 19.11.2012 seeking a direction to the respondent Bank to disburse all the terminal benefits and since there was no response even after repeated requests and representations to the respondents and also to the National Commission to the Scheduled tribes, the petitioner made a representation to the Bank to settle his retirement benefits as he was put to mental agony and suffering financial loss in view of inaction on the part of the respondents in disbursing the retirement benefit. But, there was no response from the side of the respondents. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court for mandamus directing the respondents to disburse his retirement benefits. 3. The third respondent in W.P. No. 13346 of 2013 has filed a detailed counter, which was adopted by the first and second respondents, wherein, it was stated as follows: (i) The Bank has stated that this writ petition has been filed without impleading the necessary parties, namely, District Collector and Chairman, District Vigilance Committee, Salem District Collectorate, Salem, before whom the community certificate of the petitioner has been referred for an early investigation on the genuineness of the community status as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Government Order No. 2(D) No. 108, dated 12.09.2007. The Bank further stated that they have referred the community certificate for verification long back to the District Vigilance Committee constituting of three members as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Government Order No. III dated 06.07.2005 and No. (2D) No. 108 dated 12.09.2007. The Bank further stated that they have referred the community certificate for verification long back to the District Vigilance Committee constituting of three members as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Government Order No. III dated 06.07.2005 and No. (2D) No. 108 dated 12.09.2007. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, on 25.02.1992 had sent a community verification report for further action by the District Collector, Salem. In the meantime, the petitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P. No. 15205 of 1995 and obtained stay of proceedings. It was further stated that they have been sending various communications every time and again to the District Collector and Chairman, District Vigilance Committee, Salem District Collectorate, Salem to arrange for an early investigation on the genuineness of the community status as per the directions of this Court headed by a three members District Vigilance Committee in terms of Tamil Nadu Government order No. III dated 06.07.2005 and No. (2D) No. 108 dated 12.09.2007. (ii) The Bank has further stated that they have sent the letters on various dates to the District Collector to verify about the genuineness of the community certificate of the petitioner, but till date no reply has come from the State Level Committee. Since the District Collector and Chairman, District Vigilance Committee have not disposed of the petitioner's case based on the above reference letters and keeping the file for quite a long time, the petitioner cannot thrust the bank to release the terminal benefits before final report submitted by the said committee. The petitioner could have very well obtained an order from this Court against the District Vigilance Committee by proving his community certificate. Since the District Vigilance Committee has not testified/confirmed the genuineness of the community certificate of the petitioner till date despite the receipt of aforesaid letters sent by the respondent, the petitioner cannot compel the bank to release the terminal benefits before the final report. The respondent Bank has deposited the terminal benefits in an interest bearing account. 4. The case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 19055 of 2013, as pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of this petition is as follows: The petitioner joined as a Clerk in the State Bank of India, Tirupur Branch, on 05.03.1979. After completion of probationary period of six months, her services were regularized on 05.09.1979. 4. The case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 19055 of 2013, as pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of this petition is as follows: The petitioner joined as a Clerk in the State Bank of India, Tirupur Branch, on 05.03.1979. After completion of probationary period of six months, her services were regularized on 05.09.1979. She has stated that she has rendered unblemished service and on attaining the age of superannuation, she was allowed to retire from service on 30.04.2012 by the Branch at Udumalpet and after retirement of service, her terminal benefits have not been settled. She has stated that just prior to retirement, she was served with a letter dated 26.04.2012 stating that since the verification of her community certificate is pending before the appropriate authority, it would not be in order for the Bank to pay her retirement benefits till her community status which is still pending, is decided by the appropriate authority. She has further stated that she was paid her contribution of Provident Fund after adjusting all dues to the Bank. As the Bank's contribution towards Provident Fund, Gratuity, Pension and Commutation of Pension has not been paid, the same could be kept in the interest bearing account and the monthly pension shall also be credited to a Recurring Deposit Account. She further stated that after her retirement on 30.04.2012, she requested the fourth respondent-Bank on 02.05.2012, to disburse all her terminal benefits and her further representations did not yield any good. She further stated that having retired from 30.04.2012 and that no verification has been done by the Bank and on the eve of retirement, the Bank informed the petitioner that since the verification of community status is pending, all the terminal benefits are withheld. She sent a final representation on 21.06.2013, requesting to release her terminal benefits and monthly pension. She has also stated that she completely depends on her terminal benefits and the nonpayment of the benefits on the ground that verification of community status is pending, is not correct and improper and therefore, she has approached this Court for a Mandamus to settle the terminal benefits with effect from the date of retirement, i.e. 30.04.2012. 5. She has also stated that she completely depends on her terminal benefits and the nonpayment of the benefits on the ground that verification of community status is pending, is not correct and improper and therefore, she has approached this Court for a Mandamus to settle the terminal benefits with effect from the date of retirement, i.e. 30.04.2012. 5. The respondents in W.P. No. 19055 of 2013 have filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein, it was stated as follows: (i) On 25.01.1979, the petitioner was appointed as Clerk against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribes as she claimed to be belonging to Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe on the basis of Community Certificate dated 19.04.1978 issued by the Special Tahsildar (Harijan Welfare), Coimbatore. According to the instructions that was over, the Community Certificate of persons appointed against vacancies exclusively reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes candidates have to be verified by the Revenue Authorities and the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs on 23.03.1990 had also directed all the Public Sector Banks/Financial Institutions to get the caste certificate of the existing employees, belonging to various scheduled tribes, to verify. This requirement has been restated by the Supreme Court of India in its decision reported in Kumari Madhuri Patila and Another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 241 . It was further stated that the Regional Office at Chennai, on 13.01.1998, required the Controlling Authority in Chennai Circle of State Bank of India, to direct the employees appointed against Scheduled Tribes vacancies, to produce another community certificate authenticated by the District Collectors of the concerned Districts and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner, by letter dated 19.01.1998, was called upon to produce Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate duly authenticated by the District Collector and the aforesaid circular was challenged in W.P. No. 2691 of 1998 and the petitioner was one of the concerned parties in the said writ petition as the Scheduled Tribe Employees Welfare Association had filed the said writ petition. This Court by an order dated 26.02.1998, passed an interim order restraining enforcement of that impugned circular in respect of the members of the Association, in which, the petitioner was a member. This Court by an order dated 26.02.1998, passed an interim order restraining enforcement of that impugned circular in respect of the members of the Association, in which, the petitioner was a member. The pendency of the writ petition did not have any bearing on the verification process for the Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate that had been submitted by the petitioner at the time of initial appointment and a request was made by the respondent Bank on 27.05.2005 to the State Level Scrutiny Committee, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu to pass appropriate orders on enquiry regarding the verification of Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate of the petitioner to enable the respondent Bank to proceed in determination of the employment of the petitioner. (ii) The Government of Tamil Nadu had reconstituted the District Level Vigilance Committee vide G.O. Ms. No. 111 dated 06.07.2005, based on the suggestions of the Division Bench of this Court and an Anthropologist was co-opted as third member. The Division Bench of this Court, in the order dated 22.07.2005 in W.A. No. 1645 of 2001 etc. has specifically recorded the same to be in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Tribal Commissioner (supra) and in pursuance thereof, the abovesaid writ petition in W.P. No. 2691 of 1998 was disposed of by an order dated 27.07.2005 quashing the impugned Circular dated 13.01.1998 requiring production of fresh community certificate from the District Collector and it was expressly left open to the respondent Bank to approach the District Level Committee to be constituted as per G.O. Ms. No. 111 dated 06.07.2005, to verify the community status of the members of the Scheduled Tribe Employees Welfare Association, in which, the petitioner was a member. A reference was made by the respondent Bank by letter dated 07.12.2005 to the three members of the District Vigilance Committee, Coimbatore, reconstituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu, for speedy verification of community status of the petitioner to enable the respondent Bank to proceed in determination of the employment of the petitioner. A reference was made by the respondent Bank by letter dated 07.12.2005 to the three members of the District Vigilance Committee, Coimbatore, reconstituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu, for speedy verification of community status of the petitioner to enable the respondent Bank to proceed in determination of the employment of the petitioner. In view of G.O. (2D) No. 108, dated 12.09.2007, subsequently issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV-1) Department, the verification of Scheduled Tribe Community Certificates would henceforth have to be made by the State Level Scrutiny Committee constituted in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court of India, in the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Tribal Commissioner (supra). The decision regarding the Scheduled Tribe Communal status of the petitioner is still awaited from the State Level Scrutiny Committee for determining the validity of the initial appointment of the petitioner in the services of the Bank and reminders have been sent in time and again. (iii) The Bank further contended that the petitioner was relieved on 30.04.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. The Scheduled Tribe Community Status of the petitioner is still under verification and it has to be confirmed by the appellate authority. The Bank had paid the employee's contribution towards Provident Fund after adjusting dues and stated that the payment of all other terminal benefits is entirely depend upon the outcome of the community certificate verification proceedings and that the employer's contribution towards provident fund would be invested in interest fetching fixed deposit and the monthly pension would also be deposited in a recurring deposit account. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to get all the benefits without completion of the verification process of her community status. The Bank had stated that if the petitioner had been genuinely belonging to such communal, they cannot have any grievance over the benefits going to the petitioner. In case, the Community Certificate now under verification is held to be incorrect, definitely, the benefits would go to an ineligible person on the basis of the community certificate wrongly obtained by her and the public funds cannot be misused by any one. In case, the Community Certificate now under verification is held to be incorrect, definitely, the benefits would go to an ineligible person on the basis of the community certificate wrongly obtained by her and the public funds cannot be misused by any one. The Bank has also relied upon the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Tribal Commissioner (supra), which is extracted as below: As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the Certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority, by registered post with acknowledgment due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc., of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post. The decision by the Apex Court applies to all cases where the Community certificate has not been verified earlier. The Bank further relied upon the decision reported in R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2004) 2 SCC 105 wherein, it was held that if a person is appointed against a reserved category on the basis of a community certificate, which is later found to have been false, such appointment to the post is void and non est in the eyes of law that the right to salary or pension after retirement flow from a valid and legal appointment that the consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal and such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment is found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on false caste certificate. In the light of the incontrovertible legal position coupled with the facts of the instant case, it is not possible to disburse the withheld terminal benefits of the petitioner without first determining the correctness and validity of her initial appointment in the services of State Bank of India, for which the outcome of the decision of the State Level Cast Scrutiny Committee on the Scheduled Tribe Community certificate of the petitioner and therefore, the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. (iv) The Bank further contended that no employee can claim any immunity from verifying her community status which is a condition precedent for deciding the correctness and validity of his initial appointment in a reserved post. If the certificate is held to be not correct, the employer can cancel the initial appointment of the petitioner as she would not be qualified to be appointed to the post exclusively reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. It is further contended that the burden of proof of social status is always on the person who propounds it to seek socio-economic advantages and it is no part of the duty of the State to disprove or otherwise. As per the instructions, the Bank has already forwarded the Community Certificate of the petitioner to the Revenue Authorities as early as on 1998 for verification. The delay caused in completing the verification of the Community Certificate of the petitioner is beyond the control of the Bank and the Bank cannot be faulted or held responsible for the same. (v) The Bank relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in Regional Manager, Central Bank of India vs. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir and Others, (2008) 13 SCC 170 , contending that the caste certificate was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification after ten years of an employee joining service and a long time was taken by the Scrutiny Committee to verify the same is of no consequence inasmuch as delay on both the counts does not validate the caste certificate and the consequent illegal appointment. It was further stated that if the petitioner is desirous of expediting the matter and giving a quietus to the issue, she could have perused the matter with the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, instead of trying to shift the blame to the Bank. (vi) The Bank further contended that it is not the case of the Bank that the Bank has denied the terminal benefits. The Bank has withheld the terminal benefits. The releasing of terminal benefits to the petitioner would depend upon the decision of the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. (vi) The Bank further contended that it is not the case of the Bank that the Bank has denied the terminal benefits. The Bank has withheld the terminal benefits. The releasing of terminal benefits to the petitioner would depend upon the decision of the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Bank further stated that the interest of the petitioner has been adequately protected as the eligible amount of the petitioner, i.e. terminal benefits that have fallen due, has been kept in the interest fetching deposit and in case, a favourable order is given to the petitioner by the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner would be entitled to get the same. When a person wants benefits under reserved category, that person may have to cross the hurdles and certainly, it is not in the hands of the Bank as the Bank is governed by the guidelines on the policy decisions and they would release the benefits, once the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee passes final order confirming that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe Community. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents in W.P. No. 19055 of 2013 has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in a case viz. R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala and Others (supra) reported in wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once a person obtained a certificate by means of fraud and that it has been found that the person has entered into service against reserved post meant for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe on the basis of false certificate, the appointment that was acquired based on the said certificate can be terminated forthwith and there is no need to set aside the order on the ground of non-compliance of the procedure under Article 311. The Supreme Court has held that when the foundation itself is gone, no sympathetic consideration can come to the rescue of the person who entered the service by producing a false certificate and thus depriving the genuine Schedule caste candidate in getting appointment to the said post. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. In any event, that stage has not come here and the State Level Committee to whom the papers have been sent, is sleeping over for the last 15 years. 8. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. In any event, that stage has not come here and the State Level Committee to whom the papers have been sent, is sleeping over for the last 15 years. 8. In yet another decision reported in Regional Manager, Central Bank of India vs. Madhulika Guru Prasad Dahir (supra), which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in W.P. No. 19055 of 2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when a person takes an undue advantage by getting benefits of reservation and other benefits that meant for disadvantaged group, the said person is not entitled to any benefits as he has not only played a fraud on the society but in effect and substance plays a fraud on the Constitution as the Constitution of India provides for protective discrimination and reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged group to come on the same platform as that of the forward community. 9. In the said case, the Scrutiny committee has found that the certificate was not genuine and the Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition. The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Bombay High Court and restored the order of the Scrutiny Committee. The said decision is also not applicable to the facts of the case on hand as the Scrutiny Committee has not taken any decision. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also cited a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 23638 of 2008 dated 23.07.2009. In the said case, a woman employee applied for VRS on health grounds and the State Bank of India had passed an order that VRS cannot be accepted now as her community certificate was still under verification. This order was questioned in that writ petition. This Court has accepted the contention of the Bank that the petitioner in that writ petition was appointed in a reserved post for Scheduled Tribe and her appointment would be valid only if her certificate is genuine and that the genuineness of the certificate is pending consideration as she was suffering from Chronic depressive disorder and the Division Bench of this Court has passed the following order: 17. Considering the facts of this case and also the Judgment produced before us, we feel that the following order would be appropriate: The respondents will accept her application for Voluntary Retirement, pay to the petitioner her contribution to the provident fund alone. All other amounts that may be payable to her will be invested in a fixed deposit till the State Level Committee gives its decision on the certificate. The Bank will disburse the amounts if the certificate is found to be true. We earnestly hope that the State Level Committee will dispose of the matter within three months. 11. In the present case, it is admitted that the Bank had paid terminal benefits, Provident Fund dues of the employees (Employees' contribution alone) and rest of the terminal benefits are deposited in a interest fetching account. As long as the Community Certificate issue is not concluded, the Bank cannot be directed to part with money. The money of the petitioners would be safe in the Bank. If the amount is paid to the petitioners, it would be difficult for the Bank to recover the money and they will have to spend more money to recover the same from the petitioner. 12. In yet another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court in W.P. No. 18214 of 2010 R. Balaguru vs. The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai and Others, after recording the relevant portion from Kumari Madhuri Patil v Additional Tribal Commissioner (supra), has granted relief to the petitioner and the same is extracted hereunder: 12. In Kumari Madhuri Patila and Another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others (supra) the Supreme Court, while considering the case of a person who had secured admission or appointment on the basis of false certificate, has observed as follows: 13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinized at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. By the above Judgment, the Supreme Court had directed that the certificate produced at the time of admission or appointment should be scrutinized at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. In the given case, the appointment of the petitioner was during the year 1980. The respondent-Chennai Port Trust did not send the certificate of the petitioner for verification immediately. Nevertheless, on the ground that the complaint was received in the year 1992, the certificate was sought to be verified only in that year and factually the said certificate has not been cancelled even now. Hence, in our opinion, so long as the certificate of the petitioner has not been cancelled, the petitioner cannot be denied the service benefits and in that sense, the petitioner can claim the terminal benefits attached to his employment and the same cannot be denied. Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the respondent-Chennai Port Trust, however, would submit that in any case this Court directed the State Level Scrutiny Committee to consider and pass orders on the certificate and therefore the petitioner has to wait till such orders are passed. In our opinion, on the facts of this case, we are unable to agree with that contention. It is true that in the normal course, an employee whose certificate is sought to be verified cannot seek for the benefit on the ground that he has attained the age of superannuation and retired by the time, as he has to await the disposal of the application by the State Level Scrutiny Committee as to the genuineness of the certificate. In this case, we are not inclined to apply that general principle for the simple reason that the petitioner had put in early 30 years of service in the respondent-Chennai Port Trust and his certificate was sought to be verified only after 12 years and even thereafter, for the last 18 years, the certificate is not found to be false. Further, ever after the directions of this Court and in compliance of the same, the petitioner had submitted his representation as early as on 21.2.2009, but the State Level Scrutiny Committee has not passed orders and therefore, on the peculiar facts of this case, we are inclined to allow the writ petition without waiting for the verification of the community certificate, as delaying the payment of terminal benefits would seriously prejudice and result in hardship to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2010 is closed. In this case, the Division Bench of this Court has not referred to the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 23638 of 2008 dated 23.07.2009. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents in W.P. No. 19055 of 2013 has also relied on the decision of this Court in a W.P. No. 23650 of 2005 dated 07.07.2011, wherein this Court, in similar situation, has directed the State Level Committee to hold an enquiry and to give an opportunity to the petitioner concerned and to pass final orders within two months and the Court expressed that the petitioner had retired long ago and the terminal benefits had not been settled only on the ground that the verification of Community Certificate is pending before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. 14. In W.P. No. 17184 of 2011 dated 29.09.2011, which is relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents in W.P. No. 19055 of 2013, the petitioner therein sought for quashing the order of the State Bank of India and to direct the respondent to release pension and other terminal benefits without insisting on the verification of the community certificate and this Court after extracting para 19 of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala (supra), has passed the following orders. 16. 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. 15. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied upon the decision reported in TNLJ 144 1996 and the decision of the Supreme Court reported in R. Kandasamy vs. Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust, (1997) 7 SCC 505 . These two cases pertain to the issuance of community certificate by Tahsildhar. The Courts have held that the certificate issued by Tahsildhar upto 11.11.1989 is valid and thereafter, the certificate could be issued only by Revenue Divisional Officer. That is not the case here and I cannot decide the issue now as any finding on this issue would render the State Level Committee inactive on the issue in question. Since the State Level Committee alone can decide about the genuineness of the certificate produced by the petitioners which is forwarded by the Bank to the appropriate authorities to scrutinize and verify the genuineness of the certificate, the decisions quoted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of this case. It is open to the petitioners to put forth their contentions before the State Level Committee. 16. It is open to the petitioners to put forth their contentions before the State Level Committee. 16. From the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank, I am of the view that unless and until the issue relating to the Community Certificate is decided, the terminal benefits of the petitioners need not be part with by the Bank and till the issue is decided by the State Level Committee, there is no need for the Bank to release terminal benefits. The benefit should reach the Downtrodden Community, namely, Scheduled Tribe. Whether the petitioner belonging to Scheduled Tribe or not has to be decided only by the State Level Committee. Admittedly, in this case, the State Level Committee is not a party to the writ petitions. The petitioners have retired in the year 2012. The Bank in all fairness has released the employees' contribution towards provident fund and kept other terminal benefits in a interest fetching deposit, apart from, depositing the pensionary benefits in a recurring deposit. Hence, the petitioners are not put to any disadvantage. If the amount is released to the petitioners without verification, the petitioners would be in advantage and the Bank would be in most disadvantage position. 17. In view of the said observation, I am inclined to follow the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 23.07.2009 in W.P. No. 23638 of 2008 and to direct the respondents concerned to disburse the terminal benefits if the certificate is found to be genuine by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. This Court expects the State Level Committee to wake up from slumber and dispose of the issue of genuineness of the Community Certificate in question within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The State Level Committee shall not grant long adjournment and in any event such adjournment shall not exceed a period of seven days at a time. This Court makes an observation that whenever the Community Certificate is sent for verification, it should be scrutinized and a decision should be taken on the genuineness of the certificate as early as possible, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of reference made by the Central Government Establishments, otherwise, the deprived community will always be deprived. This Court makes an observation that whenever the Community Certificate is sent for verification, it should be scrutinized and a decision should be taken on the genuineness of the certificate as early as possible, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of reference made by the Central Government Establishments, otherwise, the deprived community will always be deprived. There is no purpose in making a speech that everyone is acting for downtrodden, but, it should be shown in action. If there is an action on the part of the Government authorities in creating some bogus or fake certificate, it results in the persons getting employment and continue in the service for years and thereby making the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe communities to starve forever. If the authorities who are in the State Level Committee wants to make the dream of Dr. Ambedkar to become true, they should act for the said purpose in a dynamic way. With the above directions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.