The employer is kind. But the employee complains that it is not kind enough. How kind should an employer be towards its employee, whose very entry into the service was found to have been on shaky, questionable grounds?

2. Haridas K.N., the petitioner, joined the State Bank of Travancore, the respondent, on 28.07.1972 as a Peon. Promoted as a Record Keeper, he retired on 31.07.2012. While he was in service, there arose a dispute about his community status, because he secured his employment claiming to be a scheduled tribe candidate–Mala Araya. The dispute or the resulting litigation has run in two streams; parallel streams, if I may say so.

3. Briefly I will touch upon the judicial course of the dispute in both the streams: In 1978, certain people from Mala Araya community, including the petitioner's close relatives–but not the petitioner–filed O.S. No. 487 of 1978 seeking a declaration that they belong to Mala Araya community; the Government was a party. When the suit was allowed, the Government filed an appeal, but without success. Later, it filed a Second Appeal before this Court.

4. When the Second Appeal was pending, the State brought in legislation: the Kerala Schedule Casts and Schedule Tribes, Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1996 ("the Act"). As a result, this Court closed the Second Appeal, leaving it open for the parties to agitate their claim under the Act. But the Court has also declared that the Civil Court is not competent to declare the plaintiffs' community status. Thus, the decree in O.S No. 487 of 1978 fell to the ground, stood nullified.

5. Under the Act, Haridas and two others agitated their right to community status before the Scrutiny Committee, which, on enquiry, found against them: their claim that they belong to Mala Araya Community was rejected; instead, the Committee declared that they belong to Araya Community, which is an OBC. Because of the findings by a competent authority, the Bank, the employer, asked Haridas to show cause why he should not be departmentally proceeded against for his securing employment using what is said to be a false community certificate.

6. Questioning the show-cause notice, Haridas filed W.P.(C) No. 36469 of 2007 and obtained a stay of all further proceedings. While the writ petition was pending, he superannuated. As the Bank refused to settle his terminal benefits, Haridas filed another writ petition–W.P.(C) No. 23031 of 2012. This Court, through Ext.P1 judgment dated 10.06.2013, disposed of both the writ petitions. As much depends on the result of how these two writ petitions came to be disposed of, it pays to quote the directions in the common judgment:

"8. In the result, these writ petitions are disposed of as above:-

W.P.(C) No. 36469/2007 is closed as the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation and the Bank does not propose to continue with the disciplinary proceedings.

In W.P.(C) No. 23031/2012, the petitioner shall submit a representation to the respondent Bank highlighting his entitlement for the terminal benefits and pension which shall be considered by the Bank and appropriate orders in that regard shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."

(Emphasis added)

7. Both the writ petitions disposed of, Haridas submitted Ext.P3 representation to the Bank for his terminal benefits. His claim rejected by the Bank through Ext.P4, Haridas approached this Court. He filed W.P.(C) No. 26438 of 2013 challenging Ext.P4. This Court in Ext.P5 judgment set aside Ext.P4 because the Bank's rejection provided no reasons why Haridas was not entitled to his terminal benefits. In other words, the order is non-speaking. The judgment, however, left it open for the Bank to proceed further by providing necessary reasons. In the light of Ext.P5 judgment, Haridas submitted Ext.P6 representation reiterating his request for having the terminal benefits. Eventually, the Bank once again refused to pay th