Post-retirement caste-certificate invalidation alone cannot disentitle an employee to retiral benefits.

The petitioner, a retired peon, claimed to belong to the Thakar Scheduled Tribe. She relied on pre-Constitution records concerning paternal relatives and her real brother’s caste-validity certificate in support of her claim.

After an earlier invalidation on the technical ground that her certificate was not in the prescribed form, she obtained a fresh certificate and applied again for verification.

The Scrutiny Committee referred her claim to the vigilance cell and invalidated it by order dated 11 February 2022.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 226, stating that she had completed 38 years of service and that her pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits were withheld because of the invalidation.

Whether the petitioner’s caste-claim invalidation order should be set aside in light of the evidence and the circumstances of her case.

Whether the petitioner could be denied pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits solely because her caste certificate was invalidated after her long service and superannuation.

Under Article 226, the High Court may review a Scrutiny Committee’s decision and grant appropriate relief.

The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, includes Section 10, but the Court noted that the employer had not invoked it to discharge the petitioner.

The Government Resolution dated 27 December 2019 provided for supernumerary posts as a humanitarian measure for affected employees.

Relying on Prakash S/o Fulchand Barwal, Saraswati w/o Nagnath Mupde, Manda w/o Prakash Sonawane, and the cited decisions including Surekha Baljorsingh Thakur, the Court applied the principle that long service and post-retirement invalidation do not, by themselves, justify withholding pensionary and other retirement benefits.

The Court considered the petitioner’s long, uninterrupted service, her superannuation, and the fact that the employer had not discharged her under Section 10 of the 2000 Act.

It treated the cited decisions as establishing that employees or their eligible family members should not be deprived of pensionary benefits solely because a caste claim was invalidated after long service or retirement.

The Court also noted the documentary material and her brother’s validity certificate relied upon in challenging the Committee’s decision, and concluded that the petitioner’s retirement benefits could not be withheld on the stated ground.

It directed Respondent No. 3 to release the petitioner’s pensionary benefits, gratuity and other retirement benefits within three weeks of upload of the order, with interest at 8% per annum from the dates the payments became due.

Rule was made absolute.