1. Denial of post-retirement benefits following a cessation order based on an allegedly false community certificate after thirty-eight years of service. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 237
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aniruddha Bose, Krishna Murari, JJ.
R. Sundaram – Appellant
vs.
The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. ____ of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. /2023 Diary No.15448 /2020)
Decided On : 17-03-2023
Important Points
Pensionary benefits are a constitutional right. Verification of community certificates must be expeditious and follow principles of natural justice. Proceedings challenging a person's community identity cannot be conducted ex-parte; failure to provide a fair hearing means the burden of proof to invalidate the certificate is not discharged.
Subject
Employment Law - Pension and Retirement Benefits
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.19(1)(f), Art.31(1), Art.300(a)
WEST BENGAL SERVICES DEATH-CUM-RETIREMENT BENEFIT RULES: R.10(1)
WEST BENGAL SERVICES DEATH-CUM-RETIREMENT BENEFIT RULES: R.10(1)
Headnote
Pension -- appointment on basis of ST certificate -- cessation order after 38 years' service and just 2 days before superannuation on ground of caste certificate being false -- inordinate and unexplained delay of 18 years in verification of certificate -- harassment clearly visible -- no opportunity given to cross-examination witnesses -- violation of principles of natural justice -- right to pensionary benefit constitutional right -- cannot be taken away without proper justification -- respondents failed to discharge burden of proof to disprove caste certificate -- certificate presumed to be genuine -- appellant entitled to all retiral benefits along with 6% simple interest from due date of payment to date of actual payment. (1994) 6 SCC 241, (1999) 3 SCC 438 and (2013) 12 SCC 210 relied on. [Paras 21, 23 & 24]
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Prabakaran, Sr. Adv. Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv. Mr. G. Jai Singh, Adv. Mr. Gajapathi Krishnan, Adv. Ms. R V Shaarumathi, Adv. Ms. Sujatha Baghthi, Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Mahto, Adv. M/S. Ram Sankar & Co, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma, AOR 2 Mr. Vishwaditya Sharma, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Prabakaran, Sr. Adv. Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv. Mr. G. Jai Singh, Adv. Mr. Gajapathi Krishnan, Adv. Ms. R V Shaarumathi, Adv. Ms. Sujatha Baghthi, Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Mahto, Adv. M/S. Ram Sankar & Co, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma, AOR 2 Mr. Vishwaditya Sharma, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Appellant alleged denial of natural justice and harassment; Respondents contended that the decision was ex-parte due to the Appellant's failure to appear despite notice. (Para 9 , 10 )
3. The court found an inordinate nineteen-year delay in verification and a violation of natural justice as the Appellant was not properly served notice. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Pensionary benefits are a constitutional right; verification of community certificates must be expeditious and adhere to natural justice, otherwise the certificate is presumed genuine. (Para 11 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
5. Impugned orders set aside; Respondent directed to grant all post-retirement benefits with six percent simple interest. (Para 24 , 25 )
6. Is the grant of pensionary benefits considered a bounty or a legal right?
Pensionary benefits are a constitutional right and a right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution, not a bounty, and cannot be denied without proper justification or authority of law. (Para 11 , 12 )
7. What is the required timeframe for the verification of community certificates?
Verification must be completed expeditiously and with promptitude. Inordinate and unexplained delays, such as nineteen years, fall outside the ambit of reasonable time. (Para 15 , 16 )
8. Can proceedings questioning the validity of a community certificate be conducted ex-parte?
No, because such proceedings strike at the core of a person's identity. The principle of Audi Alteram Partem must be followed, ensuring the right to be heard and cross-examine witnesses. (Para 20 , 22 , 23 )
9. Who bears the burden of proof when a community certificate is alleged to be fake?
The burden of proof lies with the respondents to disprove the genuineness of the certificate. If this burden is not discharged, the certificate must be presumed genuine. (Para 21 , 23 )
JUDGMENT :
Krishna Murari, J.
Delay condoned. Leave Granted.
2. The present Appeal is directed against the final order and judgment dated 13.02.2020 in Review Application No. 157 of 2019 passed by the High Court of Madras, and against order dated 16.04.2019 in W.P. No. 28295 of 2018 passed by the High Court of Madras (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) whereby the Appellants’ challenge to the denial of his post-retirement benefits was dismissed.
BACKGROUND FACTS
3. The Appellant was appointed as a clerk-cum-shroff in the Respondent bank on the basis of a community certificate dated 15.11.1975 certifying that he was from the Konda Reddy Community. After a tenure of 38 years, the Appellant retired as a Scale 3 officer, however, two days before his superannuation, he received a cessation order on grounds of his caste certificate being false, and all his retirement benefits except PF were withheld from him.
4. During the Appellant’s tenure in the respondent bank, The District collector (sixth respondent herein), without conducting any enquiry, cancelled the community certificate granted to the Appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant filed WP No. 12546 of 1998. The High Court vide order dated 09.08.2009 remanded the matter back to the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee (first respondent herein) to conduct a fresh enquiry. However, even after the High Court order, the verification with regard to the communal status of the Appellant was still not concluded, and this led to the Appellant’s retirement without realization of his retirement benefits.
5. The Appellant then, to seek his post-retirement benefits filed WP No. 19006 of 2013 in the High Court, however the same was disposed off vide order dated 04.07.2014, and the first respondent was directed to complete the enquiry within a period of eight weeks. The Appellant then preferred an SLP in the Supreme Court against the above mentioned High Court order, and during the pendency of the SLP, an interim order was passed by this Hon’ble Court directing the Appellant to appear before the first respondent for enquiry. Subsequently, the said SLP was withdrawn.
6. In the meantime, the fifth respondent concluded the enquiry and submitted a report dated 29.11.2017 with the finding that the Appellant in fact did not belong to the Konda Reddy Community. Based on this report, a show cause notice was issued to the Appellant dated 07.12.2017. As against this, the Appellant filed another W.P No. 33207/2017 seeking to set aside the show cause notice and the enquiry report. The High Court, vide order dated 19.12.2017 allowed the same, and remanded the matter back to the scrutiny committee whilst quashing the show cause notice and the enquiry report.
7. Subsequent to the order of the High Court remanding the matter back to the scrutiny committee, the committee again proceeded and held that the caste certificate of the Appellant was not correct based on vigilance reports and other expert reports.
8. The Appellant, aggrieved by the above mentioned report of the scrutiny committee filed another W.P No. 28295/2018 and along with a contempt petition seeking for a restoration of the community certificate, however both were dismissed by the High Court vide impugned judgement dated 16.04.2019 on grounds that despite fair opportunity being granted to the Appellant, he had not abided by the same; The Appellant then preferred a Review Application No. 157/2019 in the High Court, however, this was also dismissed vide second impugned judgement dated 13.02.2020.
ANALYSIS
9. Mr. R. Balasubramanian and Mr. S. Prabakaran, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant vehemently argued that as per the directions of the High Court in order dated 19.12.2017, the Appellant was to be given due opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, and copies of all documents relied on by the Respondents was to be furnished to the Appellant, however, the same was not done. It has been further contended that at the time w
