High Court · 2025

WP.No.106 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 22.01.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIANANDTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPANWP No. 106 of 2025andWMP No.124 of 2025 R.Krishnaveni.... PetitionerVs1.The Chairman,State Level Scrutiny Committee and Secretary,Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare DepartmentFort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Bank of Barodarepresented by its Deputy General Manager,Regional Office, Chennai Region,No.10, C.P.Ramasamy Salai,Alwarpet, Chennai-18..... RespondentsPRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1st respondent from verifying the petitioner's community status in view of the petitioner's retirement on 30.06.2019 and the 2nd respondent to forthwith release pension along with commutation, gratuity, earned leave encashment and other admissible terminal benefits.1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.106 of 2025For Petitioner: Mr.V.VijayashankarFor Respondents: Mr.Vadivel Deenadayalan Additional Government Pleader for R1 R2-No Appearance*****ORDER[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J] The petitioner seeks a Mandamus forbearing the State Level Committee from verifying the communal status of the petitioner in view of her retirement on 30.06.2019.2. The background facts which led to this writ petition are as follows:-The petitioner joined the services of the 2nd respondent-Bank as early as 1983 i.e., on 09.11.1983. Nearly after 17 years, by a communication dated 22.06.2000 the bank wrote to the District Collector, Trichirapalli seeking verification of the community certificate. Though an enquiry notice was issued to the petitioner for verification of the community certificate in the year 2001, no further proceedings were taken. The employer-2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.106 of 2025Bank had been consistently reminding the District Collector, Trichirapalli for conduct of the enquiry. However, no enquiry was conducted. It appears that certain statements were obtained from the petitioner during the year 2002, wherein her address is shown as “No.23, Linghi Chetty Street, Chennai-1”. No further orders were passed. Thereafter, upon formation of the Three-Member State Level Vigilance Committee, the District Collector, Trichirapalli, by proceedings dated 30.07.2014 referred the matter to the State Level Vigilance Committee. It is the contention of the petitioner that she had not heard from the State Level Vigilance Committee thereafter. A status report has been filed by the State Level Vigilance Committee, wherein it is stated that the District Level Vigilance Cell sent several notices to the petitioner on 12.04.2016, 11.03.2019 and on 21.10.2020 and the petitioner did not appear for the enquiry. It is also stated that the Anthropologist attached with the District Vigilance Cell had sent a notice to the petitioner requiring her to attend the enquiry on 24.03.2021. In all these notices, we find that the address of the petitioner is given as “Thiru 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.106 of 2025Engoiamalai, Thottiam Taluk, Trichy District”. This address is neither the address found in the certificate of the petitioner or in the earlier proceedings. In the certificate issued to the petitioner, her address is given as “Thiruvangimalai village, Musiri Taluk, Trichi District”. In the notice issued in the year 2001 and the statement obtained from the petitioner in the year 2002, her address is given as “Lingi Chetty Street, Chennai-1”. Therefore, it is clear that the notices issued in the year 2016, 2019 and 2020 were not sent to the proper address. The acknowledgments for service of those notices have also not placed before us. It is therefore clear that no serious attempt to conduct an enquiry was ever made by the State Level Scrutiny Committee for nearly 10 years now. It is also worthwhile to point out that the employer-Bank moved this Court in the year 2016 in WP.No.160 of 2016 seeking a Mandamus to consider the representations of the Bank to conduct an enquiry on the communal status of the petitioner herein. The Division Bench even at the Admission stage observed as follows:-“4. It is really surprising as to how the authorities, who 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.106 of 2025are under an obligation to examine and verify the social status certificate, can sit over the petitioner bank's representations for years together.”3. However, recording the very fair submission of the learned Government Pleader that the enquiry will be conducted and a decision will be taken on merits within a time limit prescribed by this Court, the Division Bench directed the respondents to conclude the enquiry within a reasonable time and pass appropriate orders, within two months from the date of the order. Though this order was passed on 06.01.2016, nothing was done and we find that the notices were issued only long thereafter on 12.04.2016, 11.03.2019 and 21.10.2020. We must point out here that the notices were issued to an address, which was never on record. The petitioner again approached this Court in 2019 seeking a similar prayer for Mandamus and the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that it was pre-mature and the State Level Committee was not made a party to the proceedings. It is in this background, the petitioner is before us.4. The petitioner has served the Bank for nearly 36 years and she has been superannuated in the year 2019. In SLP.(C) No.24458 of 2019 dated 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.106 of 202503.03.2023 [Union of India and another Vs. S.Renuka and others], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the exercise of verification after retirement would be only academic. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also directed closure of the proceedings. We find that this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Manoharan Vs. Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee [WP.No.12118 of 2023] and it was held that the conduct of an enquiry after retirement would only be a wasteful exercise. 5. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in concluding that the petitioner deserves to the relief that she had asked for. We find that the State Level Scrutiny Committee, which is entrusted with the job of verification of the certificates with all object of preventing persons belonging to either Backward or Oppressed communities from garnering the benefits of reservation by obtaining false certificates. We have to express our displeasure at the conduct of the State Level Scrutiny Committee in delaying enquiries and ensuring that those persons, who had obtained the benefits go Scott-free merely because they have retired. We are unable to resist observing that the 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.106 of 2025State Level Scrutiny Committee, on many occasions, operates hand in glove with the persons, who are favoured with the certificates by delaying the enquiry. Despite the efforts of this Court for over three decades i.e., from the date of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, the situation has not changed. Despite specific directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court contained in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case [cited supra], the State of Tamil Nadu has come up with a comprehensive Government Order setting out the procedure for verification only in the year 2024. This inaction on the part of the State has paved way for uncertainty and had in fact benefited those persons, who had obtained certificates from the Authorities before the procedure for issuance of certificate was streamlined. We therefore allow the writ petition forbear the State Level Committee from conducting any enquiry regarding the genuineness of the certificate of the petitioner. We also direct the Bank to pay the retiral benefits of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. If the retiral benefits are not paid within two weeks, they will carry interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of superannuation till the date of payment. We also impose a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One lakh only] on the State for having driven the 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.106 of 2025petitioner to this Court twice and the Bank once. The cost shall be paid to Cancare Foundation, 3A, Ramaniyam Saras, 39/17, 4th Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai-600 020 within 4 weeks from today. We hope that the State Level Committee at least wakes up now and reacts promptly to requests made by the employer to verify the certificates. Since the certificate of the petitioner has not been verified, the legal heirs of the petitioner will not be entitled to the same benefit based on the certificate of the petitioner. If they want the certificate to the effect that they belong to the Scheduled Tribe Community of “Kattunayakan”, they will have to prove the fact that they belong to the said community independent of the certificate issued to them. Consequently, connected WMP is also closed. 6. Post for compliance regarding payment of costs on 19-02-2025. [R.S.M., J] [C.K., J] 22.01.2025(1/2)Index : NoInternet: YesSpeaking OrderNCC: Nokmi8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.106 of 2025To1.The Chairman,State Level Scrutiny Committee and Secretary,Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare DepartmentFort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Bank of Barodarepresented by its Deputy General Manager,Regional Office, Chennai Region,No.10, C.P.Ramasamy Salai,Alwarpet, Chennai-18.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.106 of 2025R.SUBRAMANIAN, JandC.KUMARAPPAN, JkmiWP.No.106 of 202522.01.2025(1/2)10/10