Shantaram S/o. Dagadu Sonawane vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

By this Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent no. 2 – Committee, whereby his claim for validating the tribe certificate came to be rejected.

The petitioner has also prayed for various other reliefs, including direction to respondent no. 3 – RBI for payment of pension.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the Reserve Bank of India and the State.

The following relevant dates are important for adjudication of the petition :

The petitioner was appointed in respondent no. 3 – RBI in 1982 against a post reserved for “scheduled tribe category”. At the time of the appointment, tribe certificate was filed with respondent no. 3 – RBI. The petitioner retired as Manager of respondent no. 3 – RBI on 31.12.2019. From 1982 onwards, the petitioner gradually got promoted over a period of time till his retirement as a Manager.

On 06.11.2007, his application for validating the tribe certificate along with relevant documents was filed by respondent no. 3 – RBI with respondent no. 2 – Committee. The report of vigilance cell was received on 28.11.2014. The petitioner was served with notice of hearing by respondent no.2 – committee on 02.09.2015, 20.05.2019 and 13.02.2021 which remained unattended by petitioner. However, on 02.02.2015, the petitioner had filed his say. Respondent no.2 passed order on 16.02.2021 invalidating the tribe certificate and copy of the same was also forwarded to respondent no. 3 – RBI.

After the receipt of the impugned order, respondent no. 3 – RBI withheld the pensionary benefits of the petitioner who by then had already retired on 31.12.2019. It is on the above backdrop, that the present petition is filed for quashing of the order passed by respondent no. 2 – committee dated 16.02.2021 and further seeking direction to respondent no. 3 – RBI for release of the pensionary benefits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, stated that if the prayer for pension is allowed, then he would not press the prayer for quashing of the invalidation order. This statement is accepted.

The learned AGP supported by the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 – RBI submitted that the petitioner is responsible for the delay in completion of the proceedings relating to validation of his tribe certificate and, therefore, the petitioner cannot seek relief in this petition. In our view, this submission cannot be accepted. The petitioner, at the time of the appointment in 1982, had filed the tribe certificate. Thereafter, respondent no. 3 – RBI did not take any steps calling upon the petitioner to file the tribe validation certificate. The petitioner through respondent no. 3 – RBI on 06.11.2007 made an application to respondent no. 2 – Committee along with the documents for validation of the tribe certificate. Respondent no. 2 – Committee did not take any action from 2007 till 2014.

The first notice was sent by the respondent no. 2 – Committee on 02.09.2015 which is after 8 years of the proposal. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 – Committee did not take any action for a period of 4 years i.e. till 20.05.2019, when second notice was issued. The petitioner did file his submission on 02.05.2015 giving detail explanation. Respondent no. 2 again did not take any steps from May 2019 but after 2 years, issued notice on 18.02.2021 by which time the petitioner had already retired on 31.12.2019.

In our view, the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 and 3 are equally responsible for the delay in completion of the proceedings. The petitioner through respondent no. 3 – RBI should have made an application to the concerned authority immediately after his appointment in 1982 rather than making the application in 2007. However, for this period from 1982 to 2007, respondent no.3 – RBI did not take any action against the petitioner but on the contrary, permitted the petitioner to carry on with his job and also promoted the petitioner from time to time. Respondent no. 2 – Committee after receiving application in 2007, did not act promptly but waited till 2015 for issuing the first notice and even thereafter, the second notice was issued in 2019 after 4 years from 2015 and third notice was issued after 2 years from 2019 second notice. The petitioner did file his reply in 2015. Ultimately, the impugned order came to be passed on 16.02.2021. In our view, based on these facts, the submission made by respondent nos. 2 and 3, attributing the delay to the petitioner, cannot be accepted.

Admittedly, the petitioner retired on 31.12.2019 and the impugned order invalidating the tribe certificate was passed much thereafter i.e. on 16.02.2021. Respondent no. 3 has not produced any material to show that there is any statutory order passed prohibiting the payment of pension to the petitioner. No any other action whatsover in this regard was taken by respondent no. 3 – RBI when the petitioner was in service.

In the absence of any statutory order prohibiting the payment of pension and the fact that the invalidation order was passed after the retirement of the petitioner, in our view, the impugned order cannot come in the way of the petitioner’s entitlement to receive the pension from respondent no. 3 – RBI. During the period from 1982 to 2019, admittedly, the petitioner has worked for respondent no. 3 – RBI and was promoted from time to time till the petitioner retired as a Manager. In our view, therefore, the entitlement of pension cannot be denied on account of the subsequent invalidation of the tribe certificate.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in relying upon the following decisions of this Court, wherein on identical facts, this Court has rejected action of denial of pension to an employee on account of invalidation after retirement and in the absence of any statutory order denying the pension :-

This decision was rendered by His Lordship Justice A.S. Chandurkar (As His Lordship then was) at Nagpur Bench of this Court. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in 1988. In 2016, the scrutiny committee was directed to decide the petitioner’s claim. Meanwhile, the petitioner superannuated on 31.10.2020 and, thereafter, on 02.11.2020, the scrutiny committee passed an order of invalidation. The claim of the petitioner for retiral benefits were withheld which was challenged by way of a writ petition.

Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210 and Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Jagdish Bahira and others reported in (2017) 8 SCC 670 in support of the writ petition. The Nagpur Bench in paragraph no. 5, observed that though the claim was referred to the scrutiny committee while the petitioner was in service, the same was adjudicated after his retirement. Furthermore, there was no order passed by any authority depriving the petitioner of his retiral benefits. Nagpur Bench followed the decision in the cases of Jitendra Srivastava (supra) and Jagdish Bahira (supra) and directed the respondent to release petitioner’s retiral benefits. In that case also, the petitioner made a statement that he does not wish to prosecute his claim of belonging to scheduled caste. The facts of the present case are very similar to the facts of the case which was before the Nagpur Bench.

In this case, challenge was to a chargesheet dated 29.01.2015 for non-submission of caste validity certificate. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Accountant on the post reserved for scheduled tribe. His caste claim was not referred for verification during his tenure of service and the petitioner superannuated on 31.10.2018 and on that very same day, the caste scrutiny committee invalidated his caste claim. In the petition, there was challenge to with-holding of retiral benefits. Before the High Court at Nagpur Bench, the petitioner did not press for validation of his caste claim but restricted his petition only for retiral benefits. The Nagpur Bench followed the decision in the case of Ashok Shelgenwar (supra) and allowed the claim of the petitioner by directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits.

In above decision again similar issue arose where the caste claim was invalidated after the retirement and the respondents withhold the retiral benefits. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the scrutiny committee and also prayed for release of the retiral benefits. However, at the time of the hearing, the validation claim was not pressed but the petition was restricted only for release of the retiral benefits. The Nagpur Bench after considering the decision in the case of Jitendra Srivastava (supra) and Jagdish Bahira (supra), by a detailed order, allowed the prayer for retiral benefits by recording statement that the petitioner did not desire to prosecute his claim of belonging to a particular tribe.

iv) Hemant S/o Govindrao Langhe Vs. Deputy Director, Health Services and another (Writ petition no. 2904 of 2022 – Judgment dated 25.08.2023)

On similar facts, the Nagpur Bench in the above case, after considering the decision in the case of Jitendra Sirvastava (supra) and Jagdish Bahera (supra) and V. Sukumaran V. State of Kerala and another (Civil Appeal No. 3984 of 2010 decided on 26.08.2020), directed the respondents for release of the pension and retiral benefits.

Manda w/o Prakash Sonawane Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Writ petition no. 13246 of 2024 – Judgment dated 15.10.2024.

The above decision rendered by the Principal Bench of this Court, also had an occasion to decide withholding of retiral benefits on the ground that the petitioner did not tender his validity certificate. In this case also, the employee retired on 30.06.2020 but till then, the validation certificate was not produced. The Principal Bench after considering the decision in the case of Jagdish Bahira (supra), allowed the release of pension to the petitioner.

In our view, the above judgments squarely applies to the facts of the present case and further no case is made out by the respondents to persuade us to take a different view.

In view of above and accepting the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not pressing for the challenge to the invalidation certificate, it is ordered that the petitioner is entitled to the pensionary and the retirement benefits. Respondent no. 3 – RBI to make the payment of the pension and the retirement benefits to the petitioner within 8 weeks from today.

The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Pending Civil Applications do not survive and same are disposed of.