BY AD vs SMITHA S.PILLAI

HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/REVIEW PETITIONER: BALASUNDARAM S, AGED 68 YEARS S/O. SHANMUGHASUNDARAM, RETIRED DEPUTY MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE (PRESENTLY STATE BANK OF INDIA), LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695 012, RESIDING AT 'HANUKRIPA', T.C.12/1057, CONVENT ROAD, KARUNYA LANE, NALANCHIRA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695015 BY ADVS. SMITHA S.PILLAI ALICE THOMAS M.C.SINY N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) P.K.MANOJKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 2 STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695012. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (PPG) STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695012 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1298/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: [WA Nos.1298/2024, 1823/2024] 4 JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran , J. We are disposing of these appeals together because they are edificed on the same factual circumstances and factors.

2. Compendiously, the appellant filed WP(C) No.19392/2021, seeking a direction to the State Bank of India (SBI) – from whose services he retired on 31.03.2001 – to honour his pensionary benefits; and praying that Exts.P8 and P10 communications therein – by which such prayer was declined by the Bank – be quashed. This writ petition was heard by a learned Judge of this Court and dismissed through the judgment impugned, which is dated 06.06.2024, holding that, since the appellant's caste status as a “Paanan” is pending consideration at the hands of the “Scrutiny Committee” constituted under [WA Nos.1298/2024, 1823/2024] 5 the provisions of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue Of Community Certificates Act,1996 [Act 11/1996], and since a time frame of six months had been fixed in the judgment in WP(C) No.5170/2009 (which was filed by the appellant and other members of the said community against the proceedings of the said Committee), no relief against the Bank can be granted until such time expires.

3. It transpires that the appellant thereupon filed RP No.701/2024 against the judgment in WP(C) No.19392/2021, but which has also been dismissed.

4. The appellant has thus challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.19392/2021, through WA No.1298/2024; and the order in RP No.701/2024, through WA [WA Nos.1298/2024, 1823/2024] 6 No.1823/2024.

5. Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon, learned senior counsel, instructed by Smt.Smitha S.Pillai - appearing for the appellant (who is the petitioner in the RP), argued that his client joined the services of the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore (SBT), as early as on 11.01.1978, however, conceding that it was on the strength of a Caste Certificate which certified him to be a member of the “Paanan” Community, which is a notified Scheduled Caste. He pointed out that his client retired voluntarily on 31.03.2001 without any blemish on his career and was, in fact, paid 50% of the ex gratia amounts eligible under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS); along with his Eligible Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) and Provident Fund (PF) sums, by causing an adjustment of the same against the [WA Nos.1298/2024, 1823/2024] 7 loans he had availed of from the Bank. He argued that, however, thereafter, the SBT refused to honour him the pension, or the balance 50% ex gratia payment; and that for this, they relied upon a communication which they say they received from the Chairman of the “Scrutiny Committee” as early as on 25.04.2001, intimating that the appellant was being proceeded against for having illegally and unfairly claimed himself to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.

6. Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon argued that the proceedings initiated by the “Scrutiny Committee” was in error and that it has continued ad infinitum without finality; and hence that his client and others approached this Court through WP(C) No.5170/2009, which had been disposed of by a learned Single Judge directing [WA Nos.1298/2024, 1823/2024] 8 the said Committee to complete the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the said judgment, which was delivered on 06.06.2024.

7. The learned senior counsel impressed upon us that, it was because of the above judgment that the learned Single Judge disposed of WP(C) No.19392/2021, declining to accede to the request of his client for release of his pension and balance 50% ex gratia sums, justifiably being guided by the impression that the proceedings before the “Scrutiny Committee” will obtain a finality within a period of six months.

8. Sri.Nandakumara Menon then submitted ruefully that the “Scrutiny Committee” has, however, neither completed the proceedings, nor even continued with the enquiry; and thus that [WA Nos.1298/2024, 1823/2024] 9 his client is now facing a very tenebrious scenario, where he is in the winter of his life without any financial support and wholly at the mercy of friends and relatives, whose patience is now wearing. He explained that this is more so because, his client has all the medical difficulties of old age and is unable to support it because his “DCRG” and “PF”, as said above, had been adjusted against his loans by the bank. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, prayed that both these Appeals be allowed.

9. Sri.P.Ramakrishnan – learned Standing Counsel for the State Bank of India [into which the State Bank of Travancore (SBT) had subsequently merged] submitted that his client has nothing against the appellant and that they are willing to abide by any direction to be issued by this Court. He, however, [WA Nos.1298/2024, 1823/2024] 10 expressed his apprehension that, should the “Scrutiny Committee” eventually find that the appellant does not belong to a Scheduled Caste Community, then his appointment with the “SBT” in the year 1978 would be rendered null and void and would consequently be ineligible to obtain any amount, much less the sums already paid to him. He, therefore, beseeched this Court to allow the “Scrutiny Committee” to complete the proceedings, so that his client can then act upon its resultant order, without fear of any further action from the controlling Authorities.

10. Smt.Latha Thankappan – learned Special Government Pleader, very interestingly, submitted that the Government has decided to file an Appeal against the judgment of this Court in WP(C)No.5170/2009. She said that the direction therein, that the “Scrutiny Committee” [WA Nos.1298/2024, 1823/2024] 11 must complete fresh proceedings within six months, was unfair and illegal because, the earlier proceedings did not suffer from any vitiating factors, for it to have been set aside, as has been done in the said Judgment. She argued that, therefore, since the “Scrutiny Committee” had already finalised its decision against the appellant, he cannot now maintain an Appeal against the impugned judgment because, he is not entitled to claim any benefit on his assertion that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste Community.

11. The rival submissions of parties being thus stated, we must record that, on

24.02.2025, when we considered these matters, we issued the following interim order: “Before we decide this matter, we certainly require information as to when the Scrutiny Committee proposes to complete the exercise as ordered by this [WA Nos.1298/2024, 1823/2024] 12 Court in the judgment in WP(C) No.5170/2009.

2. Normally, we need not have waited for the afore clarification because, going by the judgment, the Committee was directed to complete proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the aforesaid judgment, which would have expired sometime in the last week of December, 2024 or in the first week of January, 2025.

3. But, we are aware that the State Bank of India is placed in a predicament because, their specific stand is that, if the Scrutiny Committee is to find against the petitioner’s caste, then his appointment would have to be treated as null and void, going by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Viswanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala [2004(1)KLT 708 (SC)]; and hence that any further payments would militate against such a proposition.

4. That being said, we could have been justified in allowing this Appeal and directing the payments to be made to the petitioner solely because the [WA Nos.1298/2024, 1823/2024] 13 Scrutiny Committee has not been able to complete the action, directed by this Court. But we choose to give them one more opportunity. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader is, therefore, directed to obtain specific instructions as to the status of the enquiry by the Scrutiny Committee and if a final proceedings has been issued by him. List, therefore, on 03.03.2025”.

12. Pertinently, Smt.Latha Thankappan is unable to inform us even today, as to when the “Scrutiny Committee” will be able to complete the enquiry against the appellant; and she candidly confessed that she would not be even able to give us a ballpark period for this. She refused to offer any specified time frame, reiterating that the Government is intending to file an Appeal against the judgment in WP(C)No.5170/2009, since the directions therein - through which an earlier report of the [WA Nos.1298/2024, 1823/2024] 14 “Scrutiny Committee” had been set aside - is illegal.

13. The factual scenario we now see surely indicates a piquant situation.

14. It is admitted that the appellant joined service as early as on 11.01.1978 and retired under the applicable Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) on 31.03.2001, when, admittedly, he was not subjected to any enquiry. This is manifest from the factum of the bank itself producing Annexure R1(a) in WP(C)No.19392/2021, along with their counter affidavit, which is the notice dated 25.04.2001, they received from the Chairman of the “Scrutiny Committee”.

15. Needless to say, Annexure R1(a) letter is dated nearly a month after the appellant retired from service; and it is [WA Nos.1298/2024, 1823/2024] 15 perhaps, therefore, that the bank had honoured 50% of the ex gratia payment to him and had also adjusted his eligible “DCRG” and “PF’ into his loan account. However, when they received this letter, which, as said above, they did nearly after a month of the appellant’s retirement, they held up the balance amounts; and the said position has remained so, for the last nearly 24 years now.

16. In the meanwhile, it appears that the “Scrutiny Committee” completed enquiry against the appellant and other members of his community, to settle a report, but which was then set aside by a learned Judge of this Court in WP(C)No.5170/2009, since it had not been signed by its members, but only by its Chairperson. In the said judgment, status quo as on its date was ordered to be maintained till [WA Nos.1298/2024, 1823/2024] 16 fresh orders are passed by the “Scrutiny Committee”; with a further direction to it to issue such orders within a period of six months from the date of its receipt.

17. As presently available, more than nine months have passed after the judgment above-mentioned in WP(C)No.5170/2009 had been delivered. The period of six months fixed by it has long elapsed; but even so, Smt.Latha Thankappan – learned Special Government Pleader, is unwilling or unable – as the case may be, to give us a period, much less a date, within which the enquiry could be completed by the “Scrutiny Committee”. In fact, when we pointedly asked her, she could not even inform us whether it could be done this year; and it thus creates a situation where the enquiry continues without any visible terminum. [WA Nos.1298/2024, 1823/2024] 17

18. As we have recorded above, it is the specific submission of Smt.Latha Thankappan, that the Government intends to file an Appeal against the judgment in WP(C)No.5170/2009; but, crucially, such has still not yet been filed, concededly.

19. Obviously, this Court cannot wait for the Government to act on a future date, particularly when the judgment in WP(C)No.5170/2009 was delivered more than nine months ago and had been virtually accepted by it until now. We are guided to the suspicion that a decision to file such an Appeal was only because of the interim order above extracted, presumably since the Government has now become aware that the appellant may be able to obtain his retiral benefits on account of the delay caused by the “Scrutiny Committee”. [WA Nos.1298/2024, 1823/2024] 18

20. It does not require expatiation to remind the official respondents that delay is anathema to the processes of law, particularly when it is very large.

21. In this case, the enquiry against the appellant began some time in the year 2001, as evident from Annexure R1(a) letter produced by the “SBI”. Nearly 24 years have now passed, but a final report regarding the caste status of the appellant is nowhere in vision, or even anticipated. The appellant is more than 75 years in age and we find no cause to disbelieve the submissions of his learned Senior counsel – Sri.Nandakumara Menon, that his client is suffering from medical conditions, as any person of that age normally would. It is without doubt, as also admitted by Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, that the appellant’s DCRG and Pension never reached his [WA Nos.1298/2024, 1823/2024] 19 hands, but were adjusted against the loans outstanding. Thus, all which he has received until now, is 50% of the ex gratia payment under the “VRS”; though he is eligible to obtain pension and the balance of the said payment, under the terms of retirement.

22. We cannot be oblivious to the realities of life, particularly that of old age. The appellant surely requires sustenance, as also succor, for him to live further with minimum dignity. One cannot wait indefinitely for the “Scrutiny Committee” to finalise their enquiry; and their argument, that the earlier report had been set aside wrongly by this Court, cannot be countenanced in these proceedings. Of course, they may obtain the liberty or remedy of filing an Appeal against the judgment in WP(C)No.5170/2009, but when it is admitted that [WA Nos.1298/2024, 1823/2024] 20 it has not been done even today, it exposes the frailty of their stand.

23. We have, therefore, little doubt that it is now time for us to intervene, to ensure that the appellant is able to live his life with the unexpendable support entitled to him, under the constitutional imperatives.

24. That said, though these Appeals arise from the judgment of the learned Single Judge, it could not really require for us to intervene with it because, even if we are to confirm it, the appellant’s claims would deserve of being allowed, since the time frame fixed by this Court in WP(C)No.5170/2009 has long expired. This is more so since, in the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has refused relief, not because it found it to be untenable, but solely on account of a time frame having [WA Nos.1298/2024, 1823/2024] 21 been fixed in the earlier judgment, in WP(C)No.5170/2009. In the afore circumstances, we dispose of these Appeals directing the “SBI” to immediately release all the eligible payments to the appellant, dehors the pendency of the enquiry by the “Scrutiny Committee”, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, we have not reflected upon any liberty that the Government of Kerala may have against the judgment in WP(C)No.5170/2009; and if any contrary directions are to be issued therein within the time afore fixed, our directions would stand modulated as per it. That being so ordered, adverting to the request of Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, that the officers [WA Nos.1298/2024, 1823/2024] 22 of the “SBI” be not subjected to unnecessary prejudice in future, we put it to Sri.Nandakumara Menon, learned Senior Counsel, whether his client would be willing to execute an indemnity qua the amounts to be received by him, in favour of the Bank. He graciously agreed, saying that his client is confident that no report of the “Scrutiny Committee” would find against him. This is recorded. We, consequently, direct that the above orders of ours be implemented by the “SBI”, after accepting a simple undertaking from the appellant to indemnify them of any claim against them in future. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE stu/SAS