SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1864

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, SYAM KUMAR V.M., JJ.
Lalitha P.K., W/o. M.K. Raghuvaran and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Kerala, Represented By Chief Secretary, Secretariat and Ors. – Respondents 
WA No. 67 of 2019
Decided On : 16-06-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sri. S. Sreekumar (Sr.), Sri. P. Martin Jose, Sri. P. Prijith, Sri. Thomas P. Kuruvilla.
For the Respondents: Sri. V. Abraham Markos, Shri. Abraham Joseph Markos, Sri. Isaac Thomas, Sri. P.G. Chandapillai Abraham, Shri. Vipin Anto H.M., Shri. Alexander Joseph Markos, Shri. Sharad Joseph Kodanthara, Smt. Latha T. Thankappan - Spl GP.

The cancellation of a caste certificate must adhere strictly to prescribed procedures; failure to do so invalidates the cancellation and entitles legal heirs to accrued benefits.

Headnote:(A) Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 - Section 11 - Writ appeal against dismissal of petition for disbursal of pension and retirement benefits - The court found that the procedure under Section 11 was not followed, leading to wrongful denial of benefits to the deceased's legal heirs. (Paras 5, 15, 16)

(B) Community Certificate - Cancellation procedures must be strictly adhered to - The court emphasized that benefits accrued prior to amendments cannot be withdrawn, and the deceased's legal heirs are entitled to receive benefits posthumously. (Paras 14, 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The appellants are the legal heirs of Mr.M.K.Raghuvaran, whose caste certificate was challenged posthumously, affecting his retirement benefits. The court noted that the original petition was dismissed without proper procedure being followed.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the cancellation of the caste certificate was illegal due to non-compliance with the prescribed procedures, and the appellants must receive the retirement benefits.

Issues: The main issues were whether the cancellation of the caste certificate followed due process and whether the appellants were entitled to benefits posthumously.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the procedures under Section 11 of the Act 1996 were not followed, invalidating the cancellation of the caste certificate and affirming the entitlement of the legal heirs to retirement benefits.

Result: Judgment set aside; appellants entitled to retirement benefits.

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. 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 pursuanc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top