Petitioner, a retired bank employee, challenged the verification of his ST certificate which affected his retirement benefits. The Court held verification redundant post-relinquishment and retirement, allowing the writ and directing payment of benefits.
Proceedings quashed; Bank to pay retiral benefits within twelve weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.9936 of 2022
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.No.9936 of 2022 and
W.M.P.Nos.9661 and 21171 of 2022
N.Sundaresan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1/10
W.P.No.9936 of 2022
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records made in Proceedings No. 493/CV-3(1)/2014-12 dated 21.03.2022 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr. L.Chandrakumar
For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Additional Government Pleader (for R1 to R4) Ms. Aishwarya S.Nathan (for R5)
2/10
W.P.No.9936 of 2022
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J .)
The attempt by the Bank to verify the Community Certificate of the petitioner appears to be misplaced. Though the challenge in the Writ Petition is to the order of the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-II dated 21.03.2022, wherein the Committee had come to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe Community, viz., Kondareddis and the certificate issued to him by the Tahsildar, Turaiyur, Trichy District on 25.10.1977 is not genuine, we find that it may not be necessary for us to delve into the question in view of certain factual aspects, which we notice in the case on hand.
3/10
W.P.No.9936 of 2022
of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, issued a Circular based on certain requests made by the Public Sector Banks and the
operative portion of the said Circular, dated 12.09.1990, reads as follows:-
"The SC/ST candidates who are not willing to avail themselves of the benefits of SCs and STs in services, may be asked to furnish a Sworn Affidavit that he/she is voluntarily quitting the benefits available to him/her as an SC or ST candidates, as the case may be, and he/she will not claim such benefits in future also. After obtaining the above affidavit, he/she may be treated as a General category candidate thereafter."
respondent/Bank had made an offer to its employees, including the petitioner, to avail of the benefits of the Circular. It is seen that the petitioner had expressed his willingness to avail the benefits of the Circular and had filed an affidavit giving up his status as a Scheduled Tribe on 20.01.1992. The said offer was accepted by the Bank on 25.03.1992 and the Bank issued an order accepting the offer of the employee and treating him as a person belonging to the General Category from 20.01.1992. The employee was also communicated of the said decision of the Bank on
4/10
W.P.No.9936 of 2022
01.04.1992.
follows:-
“Accordingly, we now advise you that your request for change in community status from Sch.Tribe-Hindu-Kondareddis to General Category has been accepted by the bank and Will be effective from the date of your affidavit i.e. 20.01.92 quitting voluntarily the benefit available to you as an officer belonging to Sch.Tribe category in terms of instructions contained in HO.cir.CHO:PMG:34:90 dated 12.11.90.”
However, the authorities, viz., the State Level Scrutiny Committee-II, took upon itself the issue relating to verification and concluded that the petitioner does not belong to Hindu Kondareddis.
W.P.No.9936 of 2022
employee as early as in 1992.
however contend that if the initial appointment is based on a false certificate, then the relinquishment will be of no effect. We are afraid that we cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the Bank. In 1991 and 1992, verification of the Community Certificate was not contemplated at all. The very process of verification commenced after the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and
others, reported in 1994 (6) SCC 241 .
6/10
W.P.No.9936 of 2022
7/10
W.P.No.9936 of 2022
issued to the petitioner.
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
(R.S.M., J.) (C.K., J.)
17.12.2024
kv
Index : Yes/No Speaking order /Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
Chennai – 600 005.
8/10
W.P.No.9936 of 2022
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai – 600 009.
9/10
W.P.No.9936 of 2022
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kv
W.P.No.9936 of 2022
17.12.2024
10/10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether verification of a prior community certificate is permissible after an employee has voluntarily relinquished ST status and retired.
Whether the Court should quash the order denying retirement benefits based on a belated scrutiny initiated post-retirement.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the withdrawal of retirement pay and other benefits by the Bank.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
N.Sundaresan
The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-II
The Director of Tribal Welfare
Mohan Ram
Assistant Commissioner of Police
UCO Bank
R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.KUMARAPPAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
