JUDGMENT : (Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.) The present writ appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, assails the judgment dated 31.10.2018 passed in W.P(C)No.21205 of 2015, whereby the writ petition filed by one Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran/original petitioner has been dismissed. The appellants herein are the wife and children of Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran/ original petitioner. The appellants have been impleaded as additional petitioners in the writ petition being the legal heirs of Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran breathed his last on 07.12.2015 during pendency of the writ petition. A caste certificate Ext.P3 dated 30.04.1965 was issued in favour of Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran under the relevant rules by the competent Authority. In the year 1970 Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran got appointment as Lower Division Clerk in the establishment of the 4th respondent after due verification of his caste from the competent Authority by Ext.P4 dated 18.06.1970. Thereafter Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran joined the 4th respondent as Lower Division Clerk on 25.06.1970. In 1989 Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran was promoted to the post of Divisional Store Keeper subject to verification of his caste status. Having some doubt, the District Collector, Ernakulam vide Ext.P5 dated 27.07.1990, recommended a report from the Kerala Institute of Research Training and Development Studies, Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (KIRTADS) for confirming the caste status. The Caste Scrutiny Committee had issued a show cause notice to Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran and called for his explanation. The explanation was submitted on 02.06.2000 before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent, after affording him an opportunity of being heard, rejected the explanation vide Ext.P6 dated 03.03.2001 and accepted the report of the Vigilance Officer of KIRTADS holding that he does not belong to Scheduled Tribe and recommended to initiate appropriate action. Ext.P6 dated 03.03.2001 was challenged in O.P.No.38663 of 2001. During pendency of the petition, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P7 order dated 13.11.2001 declaring that Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran does not belong to Scheduled Tribe and directed to recover the benefits from him and his family. This Court, by judgment dated 02.03.2006, allowed O.P.No.38663 of 2001 by setting aside Exts.P6 and P7 as the same were not in conformity with the procedure prescribed in the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act , 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1996) with liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 3. Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran retired from service on superannuation on 31.08.2002. 3. Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran retired from service on superannuation on 31.08.2002. However, his entire service benefits were not disbursed and granted only provisional pension. Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran was granted all promotions and other service benefits while he was in service. On 25.10.2006, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P11 show cause notice to Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran to show cause why proceedings should not be taken against him under the Act, 1996 for obtaining a false caste certificate of Scheduled Tribe. Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran took an objection to the effect that KIRTADS report is not acceptable as the same is prepared without conducting any study as per the procedures laid down, therefore, the same is not sustainable. However, Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran did not receive any response from the 3rd respondent. Since the same is pending for a long period, he was under the bonafide belief that the proceedings were dropped considering the explanation submitted by him. In the afore circumstances, Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran filed W.P(C)No.21205 of 2015 seeking reliefs for disbursal of full pension and other retirement benefits including commutation of pay and gratuity. 4. When the 3rd respondent received notice in the aforesaid writ petition, they issued a notice dated 13.08.2015 calling upon Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran for hearing on 03.09.2015. Thereafter, Ext.P13 notice dated 07.10.2015 was issued calling upon Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran for hearing in pursuance of the direction in Ext.P8 judgment. Mr.M.K. Raghuvaran sought time and opportunity to adduce evidence. On 07.12.2015, Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran expired. Thereafter his legal heirs were impleaded, and subsequently, the writ petition was amended on 10.08.2016 challenging the further proceedings of the 3rd respondent. In view of the death of Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran, the 4th respondent produced Exts.P17 and P18 before the Court; however, they did not inform his family members. The 3rd respondent, while passing Ext.P17 order dated 28.12.2015, did not consider the contentions of Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran or his family members and that there was no compliance of Section 11 of the Act 1996. Merely relying on the KIRTADS report, the Caste Scrutiny Committee decided the issue and held that the caste certificate was fake and the same was cancelled. Being aggrieved, the present writ appeal was filed. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the 3rd respondent did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 11 of the Act 1996 while passing Ext.P17 order. Being aggrieved, the present writ appeal was filed. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the 3rd respondent did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 11 of the Act 1996 while passing Ext.P17 order. Section 11 provides for verification of caste certificate obtained by Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran after affording him an opportunity to substantiate the genuineness of it along with opportunity to challenge the report of the KIRTADS as there was a specific contention that no study was conducted by the KIRTADS in ‘Chammanampathy’ area from where father of Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran hailed, as the same is also reported in Ext.P5 which is the report of the District Collector. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that no enquiry was conducted as per the procedure laid down under Section 11 of the Act 1996 as well as the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kum.Madhuri Patil & Another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others [ (1994) 6 SCC 241 ] . 7. Section 11 of the Act 1996 provides for cancellation of false community certificate. Section 11 reads thus: “11. Cancellation of false community certificate - (1) Where before or after the commencement of this Act, a person not belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes has obtained a false community certificate to the effect that either himself or his children belongs or belong to such caste or the Tribe, the Scrutiny Committee may either suo motu or on a written complaint or report by any person or authority, call for the records and enquire into the correctness of such certificate and if it is of the opinion that the certificate was obtained fraudulently, it shall, by order, cancel the certificate after giving the person concerned an opportunity of making a representation, if any. (2) xxx (3) The Scrutiny Committee while performing its functions for verification and cancellation of community certificates shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed.” 8. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the case of Vijayan P.S. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2013 (2) KHC 149 ] to contend that, a community certificate cannot be cancelled on a mere finding that the person in whose favour the certificate was issued does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. However, before cancelling the certificate, the Scrutiny Committee has to form an opinion that it was obtained fraudulently. He further stated that there is no allegation of obtaining the caste certificate by fraud or misrepresentation. Therefore, unless it is held that the certificate was obtained by fraud, the same cannot be cancelled. He further submitted that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in R.Unnikrishnan & Another v V.K. Mahanudevan & Others [ (2014) 4 SCC 434 ] , Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran is entitled to enjoy all benefits which accrued prior to t he Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order Amendment Act, 2007 . In short, if it is found that the caste certificate has been obtained due to fraud, the employee cannot claim the scheduled tribe’s status any further, but he is entitled to retain all benefits which he had accrued prior to coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2007. In view of the aforesaid, the order of termination passed in consequence to the impugned proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee, is liable to be set aside. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind & Others [ (2001) 1 SCC 4 ] has held that “ respondent No.1 therein had joined the medical course for the year 1985- 86. Almost 15 years have passed and he has already completed the course and may be practicing as a doctor. Taking into consideration the length of time, it is for nobody's benefit to annul his admission. Huge amount is spent on each candidate for completion of the medical course. No doubt, one Scheduled Tribe candidate was deprived of joining the medical course by the admission given to respondent no.1. If any action is taken against respondent No.1, it may lead to depriving the service of a doctor to the society on whom public money has already been spent. In these circumstances, this judgment shall not affect the degree obtained by him and his practicing as a doctor. But we make it clear that he cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. In other words, he cannot take advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order any further or for any other constitutional purpose. In these circumstances, this judgment shall not affect the degree obtained by him and his practicing as a doctor. But we make it clear that he cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. In other words, he cannot take advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order any further or for any other constitutional purpose. Having regard to the passage of time, in the given circumstances, including interim orders passed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 16372/85 and other related affairs, we make it clear that the admissions and appointments that have become final, shall remain unaffected by this judgment.” 10. From the above observations, it is seen that since more than a decade has passed, the benefits already accrued to respondent No.1 in Milind (Supra) were not withdrawn; however, made it clear that he cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order and also he cannot take advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order any further or for any other constitutional purpose and restricted the same to the benefit which he had already availed. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that due procedure has been followed before cancelling the certificate. He further submitted that Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran is not entitled to continue in service and the termination is an inevitable consequence of the proceedings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, whereby the caste certificate had been cancelled. 12. Respondents 1 to 3 have also filed counter affidavit stating that the KIRTADS has already conducted an anthropological enquiry in which it was found that Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran does not belong to Scheduled Tribe “Eravallan” Community. The genealogical and documentary evidence collected by the KIRTADS proved that Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran and his family members belong to the “Valan” Fisherman Community classified under OBC/OEC. The genealogical studies conducted by the 2nd respondent proved that Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran’s father was born in the “Valan” community and hailed from Maradu Village, Ernakulam District and not from Chittoor Taluk of Palakkad District. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 14. It is not in dispute that Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran already received the benefit of employment based on the caste certificate obtained at an earlier point of time. Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran had retired from the service in the year 2002 and passed away in the year 2015. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 14. It is not in dispute that Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran already received the benefit of employment based on the caste certificate obtained at an earlier point of time. Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran had retired from the service in the year 2002 and passed away in the year 2015. The respondents could not have stopped the payment of retiral dues to the legal heirs of Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran as per R.Unnikrishnan (Supra), those benefits which a person accrued by virtue of any certificate obtained prior to and upto the date of Amendment Act, 2007 . 15. In the present case, a show cause notice was issued to Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran on 25.10.2006 much after his retirement, which could not have been done. Admittedly, the procedure laid down under Section 11 of the Act 1996 as well as the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kum.Madhuri Patil (Supra) have not been followed. Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran could not have been refused payment of pension as well as retiral dues. The respondents committed an error in denying the benefits of retiral dues as much as Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran had already retired in the year 31.08.2002, on which date the caste certificate was valid. As per Milind (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court had given a finding that the benefits, which have already been availed and accrued during the subsistence of the caste certificate, cannot be withdrawn at a subsequent stage; however, the benefit of the caste certificate may not be granted to him. However, in the present case, since Mr. M.K. Raghuvaran passed away in the year 2015, such a plea could not have been raised by the respondents. 16. A caste certificate is personal to the individual and ceases to have relevance upon their death; no other person can avail the benefits of a caste certificate issued in the name of a deceased employee. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the proceedings of Scrutiny Committee and the consequential orders passed by the Government do not suffer from any illegality. The Caste Scrutiny Committee had cancelled the caste certificate only on the basis of the findings of KIRTADS, which is illegal. The learned Single Judge also erred in coming to the conclusion that the appointment of Mr. The Caste Scrutiny Committee had cancelled the caste certificate only on the basis of the findings of KIRTADS, which is illegal. The learned Single Judge also erred in coming to the conclusion that the appointment of Mr. M.K. Raghuvaran became void and he or his legal heirs would not be entitled to receive any benefits out of a void appointment. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 31.10.2018 in W.P(C)No.21205 of 2015 is set aside and as a consequence, Exts.P13, P17 and P18 are also set aside. The respondents herein are directed to make the payment of the retiral dues and other consequential benefits including pensionary benefits to the legal heirs of Mr. M.K. Raghuvaran; ie, the appellants herein as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. This writ appeal stands allowed. No order as to costs.