A.G. Rose vs The Indian Bank

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had stated that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Konda Reddi community, which has been classified as a Scheduled Tribe, as per the Presidential notification issued under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. It has been further stated that the petitioner had been appointed as a Clerk, by the first respondent bank, in the year, 1976, under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes. At the time of his appointment, the petitioner had produced a valid community certificate, dated 1.10.1973, issued by the Taluk Office, Tirutani, stating that the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community. After verification of the said community certificate, the petitioner had been confirmed in service and he had promoted as an Officer Scale-I, during the year, 1981. While so, on verification of the community certificate issued to the petitioner, the District Collector concerned had passed an order stating that the petitioner does not belong to a Scheduled Tribe community. The said order had been passed by the District Collector, without conducting any enquiry, in accordance with law. Therefore, the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the District Collector, before this Court, by way of a writ petition, in W.P.No.12143 of 1983. The Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 16.10.1984, had held that the order passed by the District Collector was erroneous in nature, as it had been passed without following the procedures established by law.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the petitioner had been promoted as a Scale-II Officer (Manager), during the year, 1992. Later, he had retired from service, on 31.3.2012, on attaining the age of superannuation. Neither the District Collector, nor any other authority concerned, had passed an adverse order during the service of the petitioner stating that he does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community. However, a communication had been sent to the petitioner, dated 30.3.2012, by the first respondent bank, one day prior to the date of his retirement, stating that the petitioner ceased to be in service and that he would not be entitled to his retiral benefits, till final orders are passed, in respect of his community certificate. Even though the petitioner had completed nearly 36 years of service, without any blemish, the retiral benefits due to him had not been paid, by the first respondent bank, till date. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition before this Court praying that this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 30.3.2012, and to direct the first respondent to pay the petitioner the retiral benefits due to him.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that, in spite of the various decisions passed by this Court, as well as the Supreme Court, including the decision rendered, in Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, , the first respondent had refused to pay the retiral benefits due to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had retired from service, on 31.3.2012, on attaining the age of superannuation. It is also an admitted fact that the community certificate issued to the petitioner, stating that he belongs to Konda Reddi community, which is a Scheduled Tribe community, had not been validly cancelled by any authority, till date. In such circumstances, the first respondent bank cannot deny the payment of retiral benefits due to the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further contended that the communication issued by the first respondent bank, dated 30.3.2012, is erroneous and invalid in the eye of law. In the impugned communication, dated 30.3.2012, the respondent bank had relied on Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the Indian Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. However, from a reading of the said Regulation, it is clear that the first respondent bank does not have the power or the authority to issue the impugned proceedings stating that the petitioner would cease to be in service on the date of his superannuation, which is 31.3.2012. The first respondent bank had also erred in stating that the petitioner would not be entitled to the payment of retiral benefits till the proceedings are completed and final orders are passed, relating to the verification of the community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court challenging the impugned communication issued by the first respondent, dated 30.3.2012, and a direction to the first respondent to pay the retiral benefits due to the petitioner.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent bank had submitted that the petitioner had joined in service in the first respondent bank, as a Clerk, during the year, 1976, based on a community certificate produced by him, stating that he belongs to Konda Reddi Scheduled Tribe community. When serious doubts had arisen with regard to the genuineness and validity of the community certificate produced by the petitioner, the District Collector concerned had passed an order stating that the said community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is not valid. In such circumstances, the first respondent bank had issued the proceedings, dated 30.3.2012, stating that the petitioner would not be entitled to his retiral benefits till the community certificate issued in his favour is properly verified and a final decision is rendered. Even though this Court had held, by its order, dated 16.10.1984, in W.P.Nos.12134 of 1983 and 8324 of 1984, that the District Collector concerned does not have the power or authority to verify and cancel the community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, the State Level Scrutiny Committee has such a power and authority to conduct an enquiry and to give a finding as to whether the community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is genuine and valid.

The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent had submitted that the State Level Scrutiny Committee, which has been impleaded as the second respondent in the present writ petition, by an order passed by this Court, on 1.3.2013, made in M.P.No.1 of 2013, in W.P.No.11286 of 2012, may be directed to cause an enquiry and to find out if the community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is genuine and valid.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available and in view of the decisions cited supra, we find it appropriate to direct the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the second respondent herein, to consider the claims made by the petitioner, with regard to the issuance of the community certificate, stating that he belongs to Konda Reddi Scheduled Tribe community, by way of an appropriate enquiry, as per the procedures established by law and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without being influenced by the findings given by the first respondent herein. If the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the second respondent herein, finds that the claims made by the petitioner, with regard to the issuance of the community certificate, are genuine and valid, an appropriate order may be passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, as directed by this Court. In such a case, the first respondent bank shall disburse the retiral benefits due to the petitioner, based on the findings of the State Level Scrutiny Committee, within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that if the State Level Scrutiny Committee finds that the community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is not genuine or valid, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the same, if so advised, before the appropriate forum, and to seek the consequential reliefs that may be available to him under law.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.No.2 of 2012 is closed.