Case Name: M. Gunasekaran v. The State Level Scrutiny Committee-II & Anr. and G. Thangavel v. The Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee-II & Ors.
Case Numbers: W.P.Nos.24381 & 24387 of 2025
Date: Thursday, the Thirty-First Day of July, Two Thousand and Twenty-Five
Quorum: Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice M. Jothi Raman.
Facts of the case
- The petitioners in this case, both M. Gunasekaran and G. Thangavel, belonged to the Konda Reddis (ST) Community and were issued with the community certificates in 1972 and 1980, respectively, by the Tahsildars.
- Based on these certificates, both the petitioners secured government employment, that is, Gunasekaran in Vijaya Bank (now Bank of Baroda) in the year 1984 and Thangavel in Southern Railway in the year 1981.
- After completing 37 years of service, both petitioners retired in the year 2021 and 2018, respectively, acquiring only a provisional pension while other retirement benefits remained pending.
- Remarkably, after 4-7 years post–retirement, the Deputy Superintendent of Police issued a summons calling for verification of their community certificates issued around 50 – 53 years prior.
- Subsequently, the State Level Committee issued a show cause notice against both the petitioners for verification proceedings, pushing the petitioners to challenge these actions before the Madras High Court.
- The petitioners submitted undertaking affidavits, a formal sworn statement, stating that they will not claim any benefits or concessions on the basis of their caste certificates, and they are ready to surrender them to avoid any kind of harassment.
Issues Involved
- Whether the process of verification of Community Certificates can be commenced and continued after an employee’s retirement from service.
- Whether there is a time limitation for initiating these proceedings to verify the creditworthiness of the community certificates.
- Whether the post–retirement verification process of the Community Certificates is merely an academic exercise without practical utility.
- Whether the retirement benefits of an employee can be withheld solely because the process of their Community Certificate Verification is pending.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India dealing with equality and reservation provisions.
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India deals with the writ jurisdiction power of the High Courts.
- Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
- Several Supreme Court guidelines in the Kumari Madhuri Patil case and the subsequent judgments.
Arguments By the Parties
- Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioners submitted that the verification of the community certificate after retirement is purely academic, citing it in support of various High Court Judgements restraining the post–retirement verification of the Community Certificates.
- The petitioners also submitted that 40+ years in the service without any challenges to their community certificates created a legitimate expectation of the validity of their certificates.
- Attention was drawn to the Supreme Court’s scrutiny in the case of Union of India v. S. Renuka, where post-retirement verification of the community certificates of the employees were deemed to be academic, and the petitioners, with reference to this submitted that an unreasonable delay in initiating the verification proceedings of the community certificate is in violation of the principles of natural justice and administrative fairness.
- Respondent’s Arguments
- The respondents in this case argued that the process of verification of the community certificates was decreed by the Supreme Court directions in Special Leave Appeal of 2019 concerning the increasing issues with Konda Reddis Community Certificates.
- The authorities also submitted that the Supreme Court had stated that thousands and thousands of these community certificates were issued, calling it a huge racket requiring immediate enquiry.
- The respondents also contended that no unfavourable orders would be passed without due process and proper hearing.
Analysis
- Analysis of the Constitutional Framework: This case demonstrated a complex intersection of constitutional rights, administrative law principles and service jurisprudence. The Analysis of Justice Nisha Banu emphasised that Articles 15(4) and 16(4) enable approbative action for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, but such benefits but be genuine and should not be obtained by fraudulent means.
- Precedential Examination: The High Court thoroughly examined Supreme Court precedents, particularly those cases drawing a distinction between active employees and retired personnel. The Supreme Court Guidelines in the Kumari Madhuri Patil case were also examined by the Madras High Court to determine the scope of the timeline and its applicability in post-retirement cases.
- Administrative Justice Principles: A critical analysis of these principles gave light to the fact that the verification of the community certificates should ideally happen at the time of the appointment of the employee or while the employee is serving the post, and not decades later after the retirement of the employee. The Court also stated that the Government of India’s instructions from 2021 have specifically banned withholding the retirement benefits solely due to the pending process of verification of caste certificates.
- Practical Challenges Consideration: The Madras High Court, in the judgement, also took note of practical challenges faced by the elderly retirees in proving decade-old community certificates because of loss of memory, destruction of records, and also due to many other circumstances, thereby making the post-retirement verification of these caste certificates a potentially inconvenient procedure.
Split Verdict
Justice J. Nisha Banu
- Justice J. Nisha Banu’s decision was that of allowing the petition, and it was held that post–retirement verification of the caste or community certificates after 4-7 years constitutes an academic exercise without any practical utility. Justice Nisha Banu, in her judgment, also stated that a 37-year period of uninterrupted and unquestioned service creates a legitimate expectation regarding the validity of the Caste Certificate and also found that the unexplained delay in the verification process is contrary to and in violation of the administrative principles that are set out.
- Justice J. Nisha Banu accepted the undertakings made by the petitioners regarding the surrender of the certificates and non-claiming of future benefits, and directed the impugned notice to be set aside, sanctioning full retirement benefits.
Justice M. Jothi Raman
- In contrast to Justice Nisha Banu’s finding, Justice Jothi Raman held that verification once started must continue until its logical conclusion, regardless of the retirement. Justice Jothi Raman, in his judgment, held that a fraudulent act spoils all solemn acts and cannot be overlooked due to the passage of time. He, in his judgement, also stressed the importance of ensuring constitutional reservations benefits should reach the genuine beneficiaries.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court judgment demonstrates the paradox of balancing post-retirement verification processes against the need for streamlined administration workflow. The case illustrates that verification processes need to be sturdy and situated at the entry point instead of post-retirement, as numerous government circulars have suggested. The need for referral to a larger bench due to the split verdict brings an opportunity for the case to be more influential on other cases in the country.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
WRITTEN BY: YANA S JACOB
