Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 99 (CHH)

Lal Bahadur Shah v. State of Chhattisgarh

2025-02-14

AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD

body2025
Order : (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner.Also heard Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents No.1 and 2 as well as Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the acts of respondent authorities, by which they have not released the retiral dues of the petitioner i.e. Pension, Gratuity, G.P.F., Leave encashment, Family Benefit Scheme/GIS etc. 3. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents authority to immediately release the all the retiral dues ie. Pension, Gratuity, G.P.F., GIS, Leave encashment, etc to the petitioner which he is legally entitled on date of his superannuation and also quash the order of withholding of retiral dues of the petitioner, if any, passed by the respondent authority. 10.2 Further hold that the petitioner is entitles for the interest on the retiral dues from the date it fell due till realization at the rate of 18% per anmum. 10.3 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.” 4. Brief facts of the case, are that, the petitioner has been superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.03.2024 while he was working as Executive Engineer (E/M), Water Resources Department, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.). The petitioner belongs to 'Gond' caste which falls under the Scheduled Tribe Category in the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as in the State of Chhattisgarh and he did his entire education in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh i.e. Bhilai and Raigarh, which comes under territorial jurisdiction of State of Chhattisgarh. In the year 1983, the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh through Chief Engineer (E/M), WRD, Bhopal had issued an advertisement to the post of Sub Engineer, to which the petitioner had applied and participated in the said selection process and also submitted all the required documents with caste certificate. After scrutiny of all the documents submitted by the petitioner, he was allowed to participate in the said selection process. On the basis of merit, the petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Sub Engineer in Water Resources Department and again, after verification of all the documents vide order dated 07.04.1984, the petitioner has been appointed to the post of Sub Engineer. On the basis of merit, the petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Sub Engineer in Water Resources Department and again, after verification of all the documents vide order dated 07.04.1984, the petitioner has been appointed to the post of Sub Engineer. In pursuance of the said appointment order, vide order dated 20.04.1984 the authority has issued the posting order of the petitioner, by which he was posted at Ambikapur to the office of Sub Divisional Officer. Accordingly, petitioner joined on the said post on 01.05.1984. At that time, when there was a bifurcation of staff between Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, the petitioner was working on the post of Sub-Engineer in the office of the Sub- Divisional Officer (E/M), Field Operation and Maintenance Division, Shahdol, District Shahdol (M.P.), by virtue of the final allocation, the petitioner was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 30.11.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner has been promoted in the year 2003 to the post of Assistant Engineer vide order dated 01.10.2003. In due course of time, the petitioner received periodical promotions and reached to the post of Executive Engineer (E/M), Office of Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt.- Raipur (C.G. vide order dated 17.08.2010. The petitioner has already completed his service tenure of about more than 39 years as on date of his retirement and while working in the State of Chhattisgarh. The caste certificate of the petitioner was subjected to enquiry before High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. The High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee without following the due procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes & other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Certification) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2013”) for verification of caste, vide order dated 07.12.2019 has cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner dated 21.06.1980 belonging to the "Gond" community (Scheduled Tribe) even there is no finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner does not belongs to the “Gond” community. The caste certificate of the petitioner has been cancelled only on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the document prior to 1950 showing his father and forefather were residing within territorial area of the State of Chhattisgarh. 5. The caste certificate of the petitioner has been cancelled only on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the document prior to 1950 showing his father and forefather were residing within territorial area of the State of Chhattisgarh. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the said order dated 01.07.2019, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition bearing WPS No.1442 of 2020, in which, this Court has passed the interim order on 03.03.2020 directing the respondents that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner qua the service till next date of hearing. The said writ petition is still pending for its final adjudication. 6. It is further case of the petitioner that prior to superannuation of the petitioner, the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Raipur has submitted “No Objection Certificate” to respondent No.1 and also informed that WPS No.1442 of 2020 is still pending. The petitioner has been retired from the service w.e.f. 31.03.2024 while he was working as Executive Engineer in the Office of Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.), in spite of that, respondents authorities are not releasing the retiral dues of the petitioner i.e. Pension, Gratuity, Leave encashment, GPF and EPF, etc. till date. On 08.04.2024, the petitioner has approached the respondent authorities due to non-receiving of his retiral dues, requesting them to release his retiral dues i.e. Pension, Gratuity, Leave encashment, GPF and EPF etc., but till date, no action has been taken by the respondent authority 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been retired from the service w.e.f. 31.03.2024, but the petitioner has not been received any single penny from his retiral dues till date. He further submits that at the time of retirement of the petitioner as well as prior to retirement, no departmental inquiry was pending or contemplated against the petitioner as well as there is no allegation of financial loss caused to the Government due to act of the petitioner, as such, withholding the retiral dues of the petitioner is per se illegal and void ab initio. It has been contended that the action on the part of respondents in not releasing the retiral dues of the petitioner is in gross negligence as also amounts to violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been contended that the action on the part of respondents in not releasing the retiral dues of the petitioner is in gross negligence as also amounts to violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been further contended that all the formalities has been completed by the petitioner, in spite of that, the respondent authorities are not releasing the retiral dues of the petitioner and without any justification/reason withheld the retiral dues of the petitioner. It has been argued that due to pendency of WPS No.1442 of 2020 challenging the order of High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, the retiral dues of the petitioner cannot be withheld, particularly when the petitioner has retired while attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.03.2024, on completion of more than 39 years of service successfully. Even otherwise, if the writ petition is decided finally against the petitoner, it would not be affected the retiral benefits of the petitioner in any manner. It has been further argued that there is no allegation or finding of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has obtained the caste certificate by playing fraud or any misrepresentation of the facts whereas the petitioner is bonafide residence of State of Chhattisgarh and completed his entire education and service career in the State of Chhattisgarh as also belonged to Schedule Tribe as “Gond” community falls under the list of Presidential order of Schedule Tribes in the State of Chhattisgarh as well as State of Madhya Pradesh. Even otherwise, there is no provision of withholding the retiral dues after retirement only due to pendency of the writ petition against the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Civil services (Pension) Rules, 1976. It is submitted that after retirement, the petitioner is facing financial problems to maintain his family due to non-granting of his retiral dues by the respondent authorities as also facing great hardship. Reliance has been placed in the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. It is submitted that after retirement, the petitioner is facing financial problems to maintain his family due to non-granting of his retiral dues by the respondent authorities as also facing great hardship. Reliance has been placed in the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 , R. Sundaram v. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and others passed in SLP (Civil) No.2023/Diary No.15448 of 2020 decided on 17.03.2023 , State of Jharkhand and others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210 Gajanan Marotrao Nimje and others v. The Reserve Bank of India and others passed in Civil Appeal No.10396 of 2018 decided on 11.10.2018 , as also the Division Bench judgment rendered by High Court of Bombay in the matters of Dilip Chintaman Nandankar v. The Union of India and others passed in Writ Petition No.2540 of 2021 decided on 10.01.2023 Manda v. The State of Maharashtra and others passed in Writ Petition No.13426 of 2024 decided on 15.10.2004 as well as the judgment rendered by High Court of Madras in the matter of A. Subramanian v. The Chief Regional Manager and others passed in Writ Petition No.5957 of 2016 decided on 17.03.2022 to buttress his submissions. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that one complainant namely P. D. Toppo made a complaint on 06.04.2010 regarding petitioner's caste certificate being improper and as per the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), petitioner's caste certificate was scrutinized by the High Power Committee. He further submits that the High Power Committee wrote letter to Vigilance Cell to submit report regarding petitioner's social status, who in turn submitted before the High Power Committee inter alia that the petitioner has not cooperated with the investigation at all. He further submits that the High Power Committee wrote letter to Vigilance Cell to submit report regarding petitioner's social status, who in turn submitted before the High Power Committee inter alia that the petitioner has not cooperated with the investigation at all. The High Power Committee after due verification reached to the conclusion that the petitioner has utterly failed to prove that he belongs to the "Gond caste", since he could not produce a single document before Presidential Notification dated 06.09.1950 to prove that his forefathers belonged to the "Gond caste" or even that they lived in the State of Chhattisgarh at the time of publishing of the notification. The Committee on the basis of the said conclusion passed an order dated 07.12.2019 and cancelled petitioner's caste certificate. It has been contended that the petitioner was granted interim relief to the effect that 'no coercive step' qua the service of the petitioner and on the basis of the said interim order, the petitioner could continue to be in service and retired on the date of superannuation on 31.03.2024. It has been further contended that the petitioner himself has not come with clean hands before this Court as the petitioner is already being granted the benefit of 90% anticipatory pension, which the petitioner has not disclosed in the entire petition. Further, the petitioner has been appointed in the respondent department on the strength of his caste certificate and has taken the benefit of belonging to Schedule Tribe. It is argued that admittedly, the order passed by the High Power Scrutiny Committee has not been quashed till date and the matter is still pending adjudication before this Court, hence, if the petitioner does not succeed in the writ petition, then the petitioner's getting service on the basis of his caste certificate would be in service and the appointment will be declared void ab intio. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the petition deserves to be dismissed at threshold. 9. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the petition deserves to be dismissed at threshold. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the Principal Accountant General (A & E) Chhattisgarh, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as “the PAG”) being the Accounts Officer of the State, is responsible for maintaining the G.P.F accounts of the State Government employees, compiles the same, based on the Schedules (For Deposits into the G.P.F accounts) and Debit Vouchers (for Withdrawals from the G.P.F accounts) received from the Drawing and Disbursing Officers (DDOs) through the Treasuries. He further submits that the matter related to the payment of Gratuity, Leave Encashment and Pension is not dealt by this office. However, with regard to the matter pertaining to GPF, the entire GPF balance of Rs.19,61,783/- with interest up to 04/2024 was authorized in favour of the petitioner vide Office Letter No./Fund/10/04/202402303 dated 08.04.2024. It has been contended that respondent No.3 i.e Principal Accountant General (A&E), Chhattisgarh, Raipur has discharged its duties, strictly as per the rules, information and records made available. 10. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed thereto with utmost circumspection. 11. Keeping in mind the submissions of both the parties, at the very outset, I would like to state that the right to pensionary benefit is a constitutional right and as such cannot be taken away without proper justification as has been held in the matter of State of Jharkhand and others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210 . The relevant paragraph of the judgment is being extracted herein:- “15. In State of W.B. v. Haresh C. Banerjee [ (2006) 7 SCC 651 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1719] this Court recognised that even when, after the repeal of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(1) of the Constitution vide Constitution (Forty- fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 w.e.f. 20-6- 1979, the right to property no longer remained a fundamental right, it was still a constitutional right, as provided in Article 300-A of the Constitution. Right to receive pension was treated as right to property. Right to receive pension was treated as right to property. Otherwise, challenge in that case was to the vires of Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 which conferred the right upon the Governor to withhold or withdraw a pension or any part thereof under certain circumstances and the said challenge was repelled by this Court. 16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognised as a right in "property"...Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced.” 12. Further, in the matter of Dr. Uma Agarwal vs. State of U.P. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 438 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the grant of pensionary benefits is not a bounty, but a right of the employee, and as such, cannot be denied without proper justification. 13. In the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has gave fifteen guidelines as to how the exercise of verification of community certificate ought to be completed. The relevant extract from the said judgment are reproduced hereunder:- “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. 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 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 scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day- to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant. 10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 15. 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 past with acknowledgement 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.” 14. In the matter of R. Sundaram (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 13, 14, 16, 17, 21 and 24 as under:- “13. In the matter of R. Sundaram (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 13, 14, 16, 17, 21 and 24 as under:- “13. At the very beginning, we would like to state that this Court is appalled at the treatment given to the Appellant by the Respondents herein. The Appellant, before applying to the post reserved for ST candidates supplied all documents required in support of his claim as a ST candidate, and got the documents perified and approved. After being given employment however, the re evaluation of the authenticity of the documents of the Appellant have been kept pending for 19 years, dangling like a sword on the Appellants head. 14. After serving the Respondent bank for 38 years, the Appellant, two days before his superannuation received his cessation order without there being any proper enquiry. Further, on communication made to the respondent no.1, it was found that on the date of passing the cessation order, no case was pending against the Appellant. To us, a very clear pattern of harassment is visible, and there appears to be a sinister motive against the Appellant and his right to pensionary benefits. Even after 38 years of service, irrespective of the merits of the case, the fact that the Appellant has not been treated with any respect is sad to see, and the use of delayed procedure as a dangling sword can only be interpreted as harassment. 16. It has been explicitly stated by this Court that the exercise of verification of community certificate must be completed expeditiously. In the present case however, as has been mentioned above, there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay of 19 years, an amount of time which cannot be futhomed within the ambit of "reasonable time". 17. Further, the Respondent committee finally, after years of superannuation of the Appellant submitted its first report, however the same was struck down by the High Court on grounds of it being violative of principles of natural justice, as the appellant was not given an opportunity to lead his evidence and cross examine the witnesses. Subsequent to this, a fresh enquiry was conducted, and another report was submitted again, however even this report suffers from the same fallacy as the previous report because even here, the Appellant has not been afforded the opportunity to be heard. 21. Subsequent to this, a fresh enquiry was conducted, and another report was submitted again, however even this report suffers from the same fallacy as the previous report because even here, the Appellant has not been afforded the opportunity to be heard. 21. At this stage we would like to clarify that in cases where employment is base on a fake community certificate the law is settled that post-retirement benefits cannot be granted. In the present case however, there exists a very clear difference. While the Respondents have claimed the Appellant's community certificate to be fake, such a claim has not been proven. Even though two reports declaring the community certificate of the Appellant as fake were submitted after inordinate and unexplained delay, however, both the reports have not allowed the participation of the Appellant. 24. On the basis of the abovementioned discussions, we are of the opinion that both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, and the Appellant is held to be entitled to the post-retirement benefits accrued to him by way of his 38 year long service. The Respondent bank is directed to grant all post- retirement benefits to the Appellant which were denied to him along with 6% Simple Interest on account of unnecessary withholding of payment, from the date the payment was due to the date of actual payment.” 15. In the matter of Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 7, 8 ,11, 14 and 15 as under:- “7. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not the bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and un-blemished service. Conceptually it is so lucidly described in D.S. Nakara and Ors. u. Union of India: (1983) 1 SCC 305 by Justice D.A. Desal, who spoke for the Bench, in his inimitable style, in the following words: “The approach of the Respondents raises a vital and none too easy of answer, question as to why pension is paid. And why was it required to be liberalised? Is the employer, which expression will include even the State, bound to pay pension? Is there any obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has ceased to render service? What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? Is the employer, which expression will include even the State, bound to pay pension? Is there any obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has ceased to render service? What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of retirement pre and post a certain date? We need seek answer to these and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors.: (1971) Supp. S.C.R. 634 wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon any one's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied maters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab and Anr. u Iqbal Singh: (1976) II LLJ 377 SC.” 8. It is thus hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of "property". This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 11. Reading of Rule 43(b) makes it abundantly clear that even after the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, it is permissible for the Government to withhold pension etc. This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 11. Reading of Rule 43(b) makes it abundantly clear that even after the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, it is permissible for the Government to withhold pension etc. ONLY when a finding is recorded either in departmental inquiry or judicial proceedings that the employee had committed grave misconduct in the discharge of his duty while in his office. There is no provision in the rules for withholding of the pension/gratuity when such departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings are still pending. 14. Article 300A of the Constitution of India reads as under: “300A Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.-No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the Appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced.” 15. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as "law" within the meaning of aforesaid Article 300A. On the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the Appellant cannot withhold-even a part of pension or gratuity. As we noticed above, so far as statutory rules are concerned, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation. Had there been any such provision in these rules, the position would have been different.” 16. In the matter of Gajanan Marotrao Nimje (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 9 observing as follows:- “9. We are afraid, in the peculiar background of the appellants and the history of the previous litigation of the same issue, the High Court is not justified in passing such an omnibus order. There is no case for anybody leave alone the writ petitioners that at the time of entry in service, the appellants played any fraud. We are afraid, in the peculiar background of the appellants and the history of the previous litigation of the same issue, the High Court is not justified in passing such an omnibus order. There is no case for anybody leave alone the writ petitioners that at the time of entry in service, the appellants played any fraud. There was no case that the petitioners therein had played any fraud in obtaining the certificate or employment. In any case the appellants, it is pointed out that, even assuming that they do not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, fall either under the most backward or under the backward category, who were also entitled to some reservation at the time of recruitment. In order to avoid any litigation on this aspect only, the High Court in its wisdom passed the judgment dated 1.11.2012, that all the petitioners therein will be put in the general category.” 17. In the matter of Dilip Kumar Chintaman Nandankar (supra), Hon’ble Bombay High Court in paragraphs 10, 13, 17, 20 and 21 observed as follows:- “10. The pension includes gratuity and pension and gratuity can be withheld or forfeited only if the employee is found guilty of grave misconduct or is convicted of serious crime. Withholding of pension and gratuity is not permissible. Hence, has prayed to declare that pension, gratuity, leave encashment, group linked insurance cannot be withheld illegally in absence of any provision of law. 13. In view of the above, on perusal of record, the respondents found that Mr. Nandankar, the petitioner had got three promotions after 28.11.2000 and that too under protection clause as such they have re worked his promotions considering him as General Candidate after 28.11.2000. In view of this, he would have got only two promotions and he would have retired as Deputy Manager as on his date of retirement ie. 31.03.2020 and his last drawn basic salary in Deputy Manager cadre would have been Rs.75,005/. It was beyond the domain of the respondents to pay other dues such as gratuity, leave encashment and regular pension because the petitioner has not submitted Caste Validity Certificate from the Caste Scrutiny Committee as requested by email dated 11.01.2019. Hence, submitted that the respondents are working on it. 17. Our attention is drawn to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 11.10.2018 in Civil Appeal. Hence, submitted that the respondents are working on it. 17. Our attention is drawn to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 11.10.2018 in Civil Appeal. No. 10396/2018 arising out of SLP No. 13011/2018 Gajanan Marotrao Nimje & Others Vs. RBI & Others in which the Apex Court has, inter alia, passed the following order: "....all appellants (who are from Halba Koshti/Koshti/Halba communities) shall be placed below the list of the general category candidates as on 28.11.2000 and will be continued as such till their superannuation. All the benefits which the appellants earned as reserved category candidates after 28.11.2000 will be surrendered/recovered. After 28.11.2000 the benefits available to the reserved category candidates will be given to the members of the reserved category regarding whom there is no dispute. There shall be no recovery of any benefits from the employees who are already superannuated...… 20. In accordance with Rule 45 and Rule 64(6)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, a provisional pension may be 12/13 wp.2540.21.odt sanctioned to an employee against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are pending at the time of retirement. In that case, no gratuity shall be paid till the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. The Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 or instructions/guidelines issued by this Department, however, do not provide for withholding of the retirement benefits under any other circumstances, including on account of pending verification of caste status of the employee. 21. There is no departmental enquiry pending against this petitioner. As per Rules, the department cannot withhold the retirement benefits. Considering this memorandum and as no departmental enquiry is initiated or pending against the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for the retirement benefits and regular pension.” 18. In the matter of Manda (supra), High Court of Bombay has observed in paragraphs 7 and 8 as under:- “7. This Court finally allowed the claim of Kamlabai, by recording it's conclusions in paragraph Nos. 12 to 15, which read thus:- “12. The problem can be viewed from one other perspective. As on date the teacher passed away, the proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee initiated on the basis of the reference made by the respondent no. 2 were in excess of six years old. 12 to 15, which read thus:- “12. The problem can be viewed from one other perspective. As on date the teacher passed away, the proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee initiated on the basis of the reference made by the respondent no. 2 were in excess of six years old. It could be so, as submitted, that the Vigilance Cell has not been able to complete its inquiry and place a report in that regard before the Scrutiny Committee. However, the fault or lapse, as the case may be, cannot be attributed either to the petitioner or to the teacher. The obvious consequence of lack of the requisite vigilance report is that the tribe certificate, which the petitioner might have produced at the time of joming service, has not yet been invalidated. Gwen this situation, there is no positive material on the basis of which the respondent no. 2 could have even inferred that the tribe certificate dated 3rd July 1991 is false. No doubt, Act No. XXIII of 2001 has been enacted with the noble purpose of preventing the menace of dishonest people seeking admission in educational institutions or public employment on the basis of false caste/tribe certificates against vacancies reserved for the socially and backward classes. However, the law carnot he distorted to such an extent that even in canes where the Scrutiny Committee, constituted under the relevant enactment, takes abnormally long time to decide the issue of validity of a caste/tribe certificate, the delay in conclusion of the proceedings would operute to the SUNNY THOTE 6 of 959-WP-13426-2024-(C)odtutter detriment and prejudice of a distressed woman like the petitioner. 13. Pertinently, section 11 of Act No. XXIII of 2001 provides for offences and penalties. Assuming that the teacher was alive and if indeed the Scrutiny Committee had invalidated his tribe certificate, he would have exposed himself to criminal prosecution. Now that the teacher is no longer in this world, there can be no prosecution. However, if at all, it is only the cual consequence of withdrawal of benefits that would survive. Law is again well-settled that any action of a public authority entailing civil consequences must be preceded by observance of the audi alterum partem rule. With the death of the teacher, no action leading to civil consequences can be taken. This is one other reason why we hold the action of the respondents to be unsustainable in law. Law is again well-settled that any action of a public authority entailing civil consequences must be preceded by observance of the audi alterum partem rule. With the death of the teacher, no action leading to civil consequences can be taken. This is one other reason why we hold the action of the respondents to be unsustainable in law. 14. Besides, we must not be oblivious of the realities of life and the penurious condition that is ordinarily brought about by sudden demise of the sole bread earner for the family, in our country. It is with the terminal benefits that the family of the bread earner has to survive and if such benefits, which are aimed at providing succor to the family members of a deceased individual in times of distress, are sought to be withheld in the manner the respondents have taken recourse, the Court cannot and ought not to be a silent spectator, in the present case, by denying the amount of death gratuity to the petitioner, the State would be failing in its obligations as a welfare state as provided in Part IV of the Constitution. 15. For the reasons aforesaid, we find sufficient force in the petitioner's contention that the action of the respondents is unjustified. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to immediately, but not later than sixty days from date, release in favour of the petitioner the said amount of Rs. 10,53,250/ Should there be any remusaness to release the said amount within the time SUNNY THOTE 7 of 9.59- WP-13426-2024-(C).odt stipulated, the some shall carry interest 9% per annum till such time it is ultimately released in favour of the petitioner. 8. In similar set of facts, this Court (Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge and S.G. Mehare, JJ.) delivered a Judgment on 20 th July, 2021 in Writ Petition No.6485 of 2020 at Aurangabad (Sunita w/o Late Pradip Thakar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.) and by placing reliance on a Judgment of this Court, dated 12th August, 2010 delivered in Writ Petition No.3718 of 1994 (Prakash Pulchand Barwal since deceased through his Legal Heirs Smt. Shobhabai Barwal and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.), allowed the claim of Sunita and directed the payment of family pension and all retiral benefits as would have been admissible to the deceased employee had he normally superannuated from service. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.), allowed the claim of Sunita and directed the payment of family pension and all retiral benefits as would have been admissible to the deceased employee had he normally superannuated from service. For similar reasons, this Court has delivered several Judgments which are annexed to the Petition paper-book.” 19. In the matter of A. Subramanian (supra), High Court of Madras, Judgment dated 17.03.2022 passed in W.P.No.5957 of 2016 has held in paragraphs 5, 17, 18, 19 and 20 as under:- “5. In pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court in June 2001, the petitioner was summoned for enquiry by the Scrutiny Committee. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the respondent Company on 19.12.2013 on the ground that the caste status was pending verification. The petitioner was once again constrained to approach this Court in W.P. No.1165/2014 and the same was allowed by this Court on 03.02.2014. This Court, set aside the order of the respondent on the ground that as long as the community certificate issued to the petitioner was not duly cancelled and the same was subsisting, no valid action can be taken against the employee. The petitioner was therefore, reinstated in service and on superannuation, retired from service on 31.12.2014. 17. As a matter of fact, Regulation 45 mandates payment of provisional pension in case of any departmental or judicial proceedings pending against the retired employees. Therefore on no account, the retirement benefits could be validly withheld by the Department, except on the above mentioned two eventualities. 18. In any case, this Court finds that the rulings of the Division Bench as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner appear to be having more force in tune with the Service Regulations. In such circumstances, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on two decisions of the Division Bench may not be stated to prevail over as the binding precedent. Moreover, the action of the Management in not releasing the retirement benefits must be supported by explicit provision in the Regulation that govern the service conditions of the petitioner. In the absence of the same, such action cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. 19. Moreover, the action of the Management in not releasing the retirement benefits must be supported by explicit provision in the Regulation that govern the service conditions of the petitioner. In the absence of the same, such action cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. 19. In the above case, there is not only absence of provisions, authorising the Management to withhold the terminal befits, but it is also in contravention of the consistent rulings of this Court as aforementioned. 20. For the above stated reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to release all the terminal benefits duly admissible to the petitioner on his retirement from 31.12.2014 as prayed for.” 20. In view of the above pronouncements, it is quite clear that even if it is found that the person concerned obtained service or admission in any institution on the basis of his caste certificate which on later stage is declared illegal, than also the admission or the appointment cannot be cancelled. The only thing that has to be done that in future, he would not be entitled for any promotion etc. on the basis of said caste certificate. The basic object behind crediting the benefit of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits is that after retirement when an employee is of an old age, may not face any financial problem for his livelihood or necessities more particularly in cases who are alone or are neglected by the persons who are supposed to maintain them. 21. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is quite clear that after superannuation of the petitioner, the respondent authorities have disputed the caste of the petitioner alleging therein that since the petitioner has availed the service on the basis of he belonged to “Gond” caste which is under dispute, as such, his retiral dues has not been paid to him, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The retiral dues cannot be denied only on the basis of his caste certificate, which was later found to be not in accordance with law. 22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reflected from the record that after serving the petitioner for 39 years, a dispute arose with regard to his caste and his retiral dues have not been given to him without there being any proper enquiry. 22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reflected from the record that after serving the petitioner for 39 years, a dispute arose with regard to his caste and his retiral dues have not been given to him without there being any proper enquiry. To us, a very clear pattern of harassment is visible, and there appears to be a sinister motive against the petitioner and his right to pensionary benefits. Even after 39 years of service, irrespective of the merits of the case, the fact that the petitioner has not been treated with any respect is sad to see, and the use of delayed procedure as a dangling sword can only be interpreted as harassment. 23. A community certificate in cases of scheduled tribe communities, unlike any other piece of paper, is an acknowledgment of a person belonging to a community which has faced years of oppression. The Constitution of India guarantees certain rights to people from Scheduled Tribe communities on grounds of historical injustice, and for the translation of such rights from paper to real life, the community certificate in most cases becomes an essential document. This certificate, whilst being an acknowledgment of history, is also a document that tries to rectify such historical injustice by becoming a tool that fabricates constitutional rights into reality. In such a scenario where the validity of a community certificate is put to question, keeping in mind the importance of the document and the effect it has on people's rights, the proceedings questioning the document cannot, except in the most exceptional circumstances, be done ex-parte. 24. Any person, whose entire identity, and their past, present and future rights are challenged, must at the least be given an opportunity to be fairly heard. In the case at hand however, such a right has been denied to the petitioner, and hence the burden of proof on the respondents to disprove the nature of the certificate, has not been discharged. In the absence of the discharge of such burden of proof, this Court must presume the community certificate of the petitioner to be genuine. 25. On the basis of the above-mentioned discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is held to be entitled to the post- retirement benefits accrued to him such as, Pension, Gratuity, G.P.F., G.I.S., Leave Encashment, etc. by way of his 39 years long service. 25. On the basis of the above-mentioned discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is held to be entitled to the post- retirement benefits accrued to him such as, Pension, Gratuity, G.P.F., G.I.S., Leave Encashment, etc. by way of his 39 years long service. The respondents are directed to grant all post- retirement benefits to the petitioner which were denied to him on account of unnecessary withholding of payment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 26. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to cost(s).