Employee Entitled to Retiral and Pensionary Benefits Even After Caste Certificate Invalidation: Supreme Court

 

                                                              

    The Hon'ble Justices Aravind Kumar And Vipul M. Pancholi of the Supreme Court of India kindly allowed the petition of the Appellant, Shirish Pandharinath by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Consitution of India and allowed the retirement benefits even after invalidation of Scheduled Tribe certificate. (Shirish Pandharinath Patil vs. The State of Maharashtra &Ors)

    The fact of the case is that the appellant secured appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, the respondent, and worked from 1994 on the basis of the caste certificate certifying him as belonging to the "Tokre Koli". He was retired on attaining the  age of superannuation in 2025 . 

    Later, in the year 2008 his caste certificate was referred for verification by the respondent-employer (Municipal Corporation) and upon verification it was shown  that the caste of his paternal ancestors was  recorded as "Koli", "Hindu Koli" and "Hindu Suryawanshi Koli". After hearing by constituted Scrutiny Committee, appellant's caste certificate was invalidated, cancelled and confiscated. 

    Then, appellant being aggrieved challenged the said order of Scrutiny Committee before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay contending the committee had violated the principle of natural justice by rejecting his request for adjournment and failed to consider the documents produced by him. 

    He contended before High Court that entries "Koli" and Suryavanshi Koli" in the family records of the appellant cannot invalidate his claim of "Tokre "Koli" Scheduled Tribe.   

The High Court too upheld the decision of the Committee and dismissed the writ petition stating that the appellant had been afforded sufficient opportunity during the proceedings and that rejection of adjournment application had neither caused prejudice nor resulted in violation of principles of natural justice.

    The High Court also held that records available from pre-constitutional time as grandfather and father of the appellant belonging to the "Koli" has high probative value and hence rejected the claim of the appellant as belonging to the "Tokre Koli" Scheduled Tribe.

    Therefore, being aggrieved by the said judgment appellant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court praying for protection of the retiral and pensionary benefits being retired in 2025. He also stated that no member of his family has availed any benefit on the basis of impugned Caste Certificate. He also put reliance on the order of the case Surekha Baljorsingh Thakur v. Caste Scrutiny Committee and Anr. (2024) wherein the Hon'ble Court granted post-retirement benefits to the appellant notwithstanding the annulment of the caste certificate, in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

    The Supreme Court too upheld the order and judgment of the Scrutiny Committee and the High Court but appellant, having served the respondent Corporation for more than three decades considered the prayers of retiral and pensionary benefits.

    The top Court too cited the decision of Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India & Ors. v. Jagdish Bararam Bahira & Ors. (2017) which recognized that, although appointment secured on the basis of an invalid caste or tribe certificate would not survive, the Court may, in appropriate case, exercise its power Article 142 to render complete justice.

    Accordingly, the Court in exercise of inherent power under Article 142 allowed the appeal and granted the protection prayed, for the limited purpose of computation and release of his retiral and pensionary benefits with the applicable service rules which shall be processed and release within a period of sic months from the date of the judgment.

 Case: Shirish Pandharinath Patil vs. The State of Maharashtra &Ors (2026)

Date of Judgment: September 03, 2026.

Also Read: Right to Fair Trial: Meaning and Landmark Cases.