1 2026:CGHC:20858 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on 30/04/2026 Judgment Delivered on 05 /05/2026 WPS No. 1836 of 2022 P. L. Nayak S/o Late G.R. Naik Aged About 63 Years Retired Deputy Director, District Planning And Statistical Office, Raipur, Present Address Krishnapuri, Devpuri Road, Amlidih, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh --Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Planning Economic And Statical Department , Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar , Nava Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --Respondent AND WPC No. 2026 of 2023 P.L. Nayak S/o Lt. G.R. Nayak Aged About 64 Years Retired Deputy Director, District Planning And Statistical Office, Raipur, Presently Residing At Krishnapuri, Devpuri Road, Amlidih, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee Through Its Secretary/ Director Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribes Development Department, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.05.05 13:32:28 +0530 2 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Principal Secretary Planning Economic And Statistical Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.K. Jha and Ms Deepa Jha, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , J C A V Judgment 1. These two writ petitions arise out of interconnected facts and involve overlapping issues and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In WPS No. 1836/2022, the petitioner seeks for following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to this case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and direct the respondent to release the retiral benefit immediately along with 10% interest on the amount to be paid. 10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition & set aside the impugned order dated 19.06.23 passed by the concerning respondent authorities & direct them to immediate release the pension, Gratuity, GPF, Leave-in encashment & GIS & other retiral benefits of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 3. In WPC No. 2026/2023, the petitioner seeks for following reliefs:- 3 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set aside the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and declare that the petitioner is entitle for retiral benefits, in the interest of justice.” 4. Since the petitioner’s entitlement to pensionary benefits is dependent upon the validity of the caste certificate under challenge, and the facts in both petitions are common, they are being decided together and are narrated hereunder: 5. (a) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Director against a vacancy reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate on the strength of a caste certificate issued in his favour showing his caste as “Banjara”. The petitioner continued in service for a considerable period and, upon attaining the age of superannuation, retired on 30.06.2021 after handing over charge on the same date. (b) It is not in dispute that on the date of retirement, no departmental enquiry or criminal case was pending against the petitioner. However, despite such retirement, the petitioner was not extended his retiral/pensionary benefits, including pension, gratuity, GPF, leave encashment and GIS. Even provisional/anticipatory pension was not sanctioned. The petitioner is stated to have made several representations to the competent authorities seeking release of the aforesaid dues, but the same did not yield any result. For which the petitioner approached this Court by filing WPS No.1836/2022. 4 (c) In the interregnum, proceedings for verification of the petitioner’s caste certificate were initiated by the District Level Caste Verification Committee. The petitioner was called upon to appear and to produce documents in support of his caste status. According to the petitioner, though the initial communication was not duly served, he subsequently appeared before the authority and furnished all requisite documents. (d) The matter was thereafter referred to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Vigilance Cell conducted an enquiry and sought further information from the petitioner, which was duly supplied. The petitioner also made efforts to procure old revenue and other records in support of his caste claim, but was informed that such records were not readily available. The High Power Committee issued show cause notices to the petitioner from time to time. In response, the petitioner submitted replies asserting that he belongs to “Banjara” community and that no misrepresentation or suppression of facts had been made while obtaining the caste certificate. (e) However, upon consideration of the material on record, the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, vide order dated 23.12.2022, came to the conclusion that the caste “Banjara” is recognized as falling under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category in the State of Chhattisgarh and not under the Scheduled Caste category, and accordingly cancelled the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. By challenging the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee the petitioner preferred WPC No. 2026/2023. 6. (A) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2021 and, on the date of retirement, no departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings were pending against him. In 5 such circumstances, the action of the respondents in withholding the petitioner’s retiral/pensionary benefits is wholly arbitrary, illegal and without authority of law. It is contended that pension and other retiral dues are not a bounty, but constitute a valuable right, protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and cannot be withheld except in accordance with statutory provisions. Despite lapse of a considerable period from the date of retirement, the petitioner has not been paid his dues, resulting in grave financial hardship. (B) Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order has been passed with mala fide intention, subsequent to the filing of reply by the respondents before this Court with respect to retiral dues of the petitioner, with an intent to defeat the legitimate claim of the petitioner. The said order, being punitive in nature, could not have been passed without following due process of law and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava [(2013) 12 SCC 410], it is submitted that the power to withhold or withdraw pension under Rule 9 of the C.G. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 can be exercised only upon conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings and upon a finding of guilt. In the present case, no such proceedings were ever initiated, and therefore, the said provision has no application. It is further submitted that even otherwise, there is no provision for withholding leave encashment or GPF under the said Rules. (C) It is contended that the petitioner has neither been found guilty of any misconduct nor has he caused any pecuniary loss to the State, and therefore, the action of withholding his retiral dues is wholly unjustified. It is also 6 submitted that the mandatory procedural requirements, including approval of the competent authority and consultation with the Public Service Commission, have not been duly complied with, and even otherwise, no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner, in violation of principles of natural justice. (D) With regard to the cancellation of caste certificate, learned counsel submits that the proceedings before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee are vitiated on account of inordinate delay and lack of jurisdiction. It is contended that the petitioner had not obtained the caste certificate by fraud or misrepresentation, and in absence of any such finding, cancellation of the certificate after retirement is unsustainable in law. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in R. Sundaram vs. Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee (SCC Online 2023 SC 287) to contend that caste verification proceedings must be undertaken within a reasonable time, and belated interference, particularly after long years of service, is impermissible. Further reliance is placed on Secretary, Forest Department vs. Abdur Rasul Chaudhary [(2009) 7 SCC 305] and Vijay Kumar vs. Central Bank of India (AIR Online 2025 SC 576) to submit that pension, being a property right, cannot be curtailed without strict adherence to statutory procedure and principles of natural justice. (E) It is also submitted that the respondents have erroneously treated GPF as a retiral benefit, whereas the same is a contributory fund belonging to the petitioner, and cannot be withheld under the guise of pending proceedings. In sum, it is contended that both the impugned orders, namely, the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the order dated 7 19.06.2023 withholding retiral benefits, are illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 7. (i) Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the writ petitions and submits that the impugned order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee is legal and justified, and does not warrant interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner showing him to be belonging to Scheduled Caste “Banjara” was duly verified by the competent authority. Upon such verification, it has been found that “Banjara” is not included in the list of Scheduled Castes in the State of Chhattisgarh, but falls under the Other Backward Classes category. Accordingly, the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled. (ii) Learned State counsel further submits that the proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee were conducted in accordance with law. The petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity of hearing and was called upon to produce documents in support of his claim. The Vigilance Cell also conducted a detailed enquiry, and only thereafter the impugned order has been passed. It is contended that the findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee are based on material available on record and do not suffer from any illegality. It is further submitted that the petitioner had secured appointment against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates on the basis of an invalid caste certificate, thereby depriving a genuine candidate of such benefit. In such circumstances, no equitable relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner. 8 (iii) With regard to the claim for retiral benefits, it is submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, the matter has been referred to the State Government for appropriate decision regarding admissibility of retiral dues and further action. Upon considering the entire aspects of the matter in its true perspective by order dated 19.6.2023 it has been decided not to release the retiral dues in favour of the petitioner. Learned State counsel further submits that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings recorded by a quasi-judicial body, and interference is warranted only in cases of jurisdictional error or violation of principles of natural justice, which are absent in the present case. (iv) It is also contended that the petitioner did not bring all relevant facts to the notice of this Court at the appropriate stage, which led to passing of the interim order, and therefore, no relief ought to be granted on that basis. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the writ petitions, being devoid of merit, deserve to be dismissed. (v) Learned State counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Kishanrao Kurundkar & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2020 SCC OnLine SC 834) and Bhubaneswar Development Authority vs. Madhumita Das & Ors. (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 644) to contend that the Caste Scrutiny Committee, being a quasi-judicial authority, is competent to examine the validity of caste certificates on the basis of material on record, including vigilance enquiry, and to record findings thereon. It is submitted that the scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited, and this Court does not sit as an appellate 9 authority to re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its own findings in place of those recorded by the competent authority. Interference is warranted only where the decision-making process is vitiated by illegality, perversity or violation of principles of natural justice. It is thus contended that the impugned order, having been passed after due enquiry and affording opportunity to the petitioner, does not call for interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner is liable to be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to retiral and pensionary benefits in view of cancellation of his caste certificate? 10. The core issue which arises for consideration in these writ petitions pertains to the legality and validity of the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, whereby the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner claiming himself to be belonging to Scheduled Caste “Banjara” has been cancelled after detailed inquiry and vigilance verification. The said order, as is evident from the record, has been passed in exercise of powers under the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 and the Rules framed thereunder, following the procedure laid down pursuant to the law declared by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. (1994 (6) SCC 241). Para 10 13 of the said judgment, wherein the certain procedure has been provided with regard to streamlining the process, in respect of social status certificate, is reproduced hereunder:- 13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them c by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since d on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following: 1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall 11 be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level. 2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall f file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned. 3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny g Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post. 4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer high-er in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may h be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. 5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should 12 personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc. 6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with = acknowledgment due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may 13 be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-à-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed. 8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. 9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant. 10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate 14 already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee. 11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie. 13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136. 14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament. 15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational h institution responsible for making the 15 admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post. 11. The High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, after undertaking a detailed inquiry through the Vigilance Cell and examining the relevant revenue records, school records, service records and oral evidence of villagers, recorded categorical findings that the forefathers of the petitioner were consistently recorded as “Banjara” in pre-independence and post-independence revenue records, including Khasra and Jamabandi of 1940–41 and subsequent entries. The Vigilance Report further disclosed that the petitioner’s caste “Banjara” is notified as Other Backward Class (OBC) in the State of Chhattisgarh and is not included in the list of Scheduled Castes. It was also found that despite being afforded adequate opportunity, the petitioner failed to establish that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste category and, on the contrary, admitted his caste as “Banjara”. The Committee, therefore, concluded that the caste certificate issued to the petitioner as “Scheduled Caste (Banjara)” was wrongly obtained and not sustainable in law, and accordingly cancelled the same under Rule 23 of the 2013 Rules. 12. From the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner was issued a caste certificate showing him to be belonging to Scheduled Caste “Banjara”, on the basis of which he secured appointment against a reserved post. The said certificate was subjected to verification by the competent authority and, upon enquiry, it has been found that “Banjara” is not included in 16 the list of Scheduled Castes in the State of Chhattisgarh, but is recognized as falling under the Other Backward Classes category. 13. The record further reflects that the petitioner was issued notices and was afforded opportunity to produce documents in support of his claim. The Vigilance Cell conducted an enquiry and the petitioner participated in the proceedings by submitting replies and relevant material. Thus, it cannot be said that the principles of natural justice have been violated. 14. The contention of the petitioner that the proceedings were initiated belatedly and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, does not merit acceptance. Merely because the petitioner had continued in service for a considerable period would not validate an otherwise invalid caste certificate. If, upon verification, it is found that the benefit of reservation was obtained on the basis of an incorrect caste claim, the authorities are competent to take appropriate action. 15. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner on the aspect of delay are distinguishable on facts, particularly in absence of any material to show that the findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee are perverse or based on no evidence. 16. On the contrary, the scope of interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. This Court does not sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence or to substitute its own findings for those recorded by a competent quasi-judicial authority. Unless the decision-making process is shown to be vitiated by illegality, perversity or violation of principles of natural justice, no interference is warranted. 17 17. In the present case, the findings recorded by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee are based on material on record and have been arrived at after due enquiry. No jurisdictional error or procedural illegality has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference. 18. In the matter of Bhubaneswar Development Authority (Supra) the Supreme Court held thus at para No. 21 & 22 : 21. In Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India (supra), the issue before this Court was whether protection should be granted to individuals who secure access to reservation in spite of the fact that they do not belong to the reserved community. This Court overruled Kavita Solunke (supra) and Shalini (supra) on the ground that it would be contrary to the express provision of the law to import the requirement of dishonest intention. This court held: 55. [...] The intent of a candidate may be of relevance only if there is a prosecution for a criminal offence. However, where a civil consequence of withdrawing the benefits which have accrued on the basis of a false caste claim is in issue, it would be contrary to the legislative intent to import the requirement of a dishonest intent. In importing such a requirement, the Bench of two Judges in Shalini [Shalini v. New English High School Assn., (2013) 16 SCC 526: (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 265] has, with great respect, fallen into error. The judgment in Shalini [Shalini v. New English High School Assn., (2013) 16 SCC 526: (2014) 3 SCC 18 (L&S) 265] must, therefore, be held not to lay down the correct principle. In the very nature of things it would be casting an impossible burden to delve into the mental processes of an applicant for a caste certificate. [...] This Court further held that granting protection to individuals who are ineligible for the post has a deleterious effect on good governance as it: (i) allows an ineligible person to gain access to a scarce public resource (public employment); (ii) violates the rights of eligible persons; and (iii) perpetuates illegality by unduly bestowing benefits on an ineligible person. 22. The first respondent obtained employment against a post reserved for Scheduled Castes to which she was not entitled. The effect is to displace a genuine candidate, who would otherwise have been entitled to the post. No fault can be found with the conduct of the appellant in convening a disciplinary enquiry. The findings of the enquiry are unexceptionable. The punishment which was imposed could not be regarded as disproportionate. Irrespective of whether or not the caste claim of the first respondent was fraudulent or otherwise, it is evident that the benefit which she obtained of securing employment against a reserved post would have to be recalled once the caste claim has been rejected. 19. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner for release of retiral/pensionary benefits is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner secured 19 appointment against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates on the strength of the caste certificate, which now stands cancelled. 20. Once the very basis of appointment, i.e., the caste certificate, has been found to be invalid, the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim release of retiral benefits flowing from such appointment 21. The Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Kishanrao Kurundkar (Supra) has held at para 12 as under:- 12. The decision in Punjab National Bank must be read in light of these observations by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Food Corporation of India. It is trite law that an appointment secured on the basis of a fraudulent certificate is void ab initio. It is not open to the government to circumvent the existing statutory mandate by indefinitely protecting the deceitful activities of such candidates through the use of circulars or resolutions. 22. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision in Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (supra) is misplaced, as the said judgment pertains to withholding of pension during pendency of disciplinary proceedings. In the present case, the issue does not arise from departmental proceedings but from the foundational illegality of the caste certificate itself, which goes to the root of the petitioner’s appointment. Once the very basis of appointment is found to be invalid, the petitioner cannot claim pension and other retiral benefits as a matter of right flowing from such appointment. 23. Insofar as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not obtained the caste certificate by playing fraud, and that the said certificate was issued by a competent authority on the basis of which he 20 continued in service for a long period and, therefore, his retiral dues cannot be withheld, is concerned, it is an admitted position that the petitioner belongs to the Banjara caste, which falls under the OBC category. Despite this, he applied for and was appointed against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates and continued to hold the said post. Thus, the very basis of the petitioner’s appointment was invalid and illegal. Consequently, although the salary and other emoluments already received by the petitioner for the period he worked cannot be withdrawn or recovered and the petitioner is not entitled for further benefits e.g. pension and other retiral benefits and the same can not be granted to him. 24. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (supra) is misplaced inasmuch as the said judgment pertains to withholding of pension in the context of disciplinary proceedings, whereas in the present case, the issue arises out of cancellation of caste certificate and its consequential effects. Similarly, the contention regarding violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India is not attracted in the facts of the present case, as the petitioner has failed to establish a lawful entitlement to the benefits claimed. In any case, no direction for release of pension and other retiral benefits can be issued in the face of the finding that the petitioner did not belong to the category under which he secured appointment. 25. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petitions. The impugned order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of 21 India. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of release of retiral/pensionary benefits as claimed. 26. Accordingly, both the writ petitions, being devoid of merit, are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri