1 CGHC010223322026 2026:CGHC:36178-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 760 of 2026 P.L. Nayak S/o Late G.R. Nayak Aged About 67 Years Retired Deputy Director At District Planning And Statistical Office, Raipur, Present Address Krishnapuri, Devpuri Road, Amlidih, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Planning Secretary, Planning Economic And Statistical Department, Mantralaya, Mahanaid Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee Through Its Secretary/ Director Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribes Development Department, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents _________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. T.K. Jha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rohan Kumhare, Advocate For Respondents / State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14 . 08 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. T.K. Jha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rohan Kumhare, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State /respondents. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The appellant has filed this intra-Court appeal against the impugned order dated 05.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1836 of 2022 (P.L. Nayak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) and WPC No. 2026 of 2023 (P.L. Nayak Vs. High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee & Anr.) whereby both the petitions filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the concerning respondent authority (in WPS No. 1836 of 2022) and impugned order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee canceling the caste certificate of the petitioner (in WPC No. 2026 of 2023) have been by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant was appointed on the post of Assistant Director against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates on the basis of a caste certificate issued by the competent authority showing him to belong to the Scheduled Caste category of “Banjara”. The appellant continued in service for a considerable period and ultimately retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2021. It is not in dispute that on the date of his retirement, no departmental enquiry or judicial proceeding was pending against him. However, his pensionary and retiral dues, including pension, gratuity, GPF, leave encashment and GIS, were not released. 3 4. In the meantime, proceedings were initiated for verification of the appellant's caste certificate. The matter was ultimately examined by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee after vigilance enquiry and opportunity to the appellant to produce documents and submit his explanation. The Committee, vide order dated 23.12.2022, came to the conclusion that “Banjara” is not included in the Scheduled Caste list of Chhattisgarh but falls under the Other Backward Class category and consequently cancelled the caste certificate issued in favour of the appellant. 5. Aggrieved by the cancellation of his caste certificate, the appellant preferred WPC No.2026/2023, while WPS No.1836/2022 was filed seeking release of his pensionary and retiral benefits. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned common order, upheld the order of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and held that, since the appellant had secured appointment against a reserved post on the strength of the caste certificate which was subsequently found invalid, he could not claim retiral and pensionary benefits as a matter of right. Consequently, both the writ petitions were dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, particularly the denial of retiral and pensionary benefits despite the appellant having retired after rendering long years of service and there being no finding of fraud or misrepresentation against him, the present writ appeal has been preferred. 4 7. Mr. T.K. Jha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in denying the retiral and pensionary benefits to the appellant merely on the ground that his caste certificate was subsequently cancelled by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. It is submitted that the appellant was appointed on the basis of a caste certificate duly issued by the competent authority and continued in service for a considerable period i.e. for almost 34 years, ultimately retiring on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2021. Admittedly, on the date of his retirement, no departmental enquiry or judicial proceeding was pending against him. There is also no finding that the appellant had fabricated the caste certificate or obtained the same by practising fraud or misrepresentation. Learned Senior Advocate would place reliance upon Secretary, Forest Department & Others v. Abdur Rasul Chowdhury, (2009) 7 SCC 305, and submit that the power of the employer to withhold or withdraw pension after retirement is not an absolute power but must be traceable to the applicable statutory rules and must be exercised strictly in accordance with the conditions prescribed therein. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971, which specifically empowered the Governor to withhold or withdraw pension where the pensioner was found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in a departmental or judicial proceeding. The 5 Supreme Court noticed that the rule prescribed the circumstances and procedure in which such power could be exercised. It is, therefore, submitted that in the present case the respondents were required to demonstrate the existence of a specific statutory provision authorising withholding or forfeiture of the appellant's pensionary benefits. No such exercise has been undertaken. On the date of retirement, admittedly, there was no departmental or judicial proceeding pending against the appellant. The subsequent cancellation of the caste certificate, by itself, cannot be treated as a substitute for a departmental or judicial proceeding so as to authorise withholding of pension and other retiral benefits. 8. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit that the decision in Abdur Rasul Chowdhury (supra), rather than supporting the respondents, reinforces the appellant's contention that pension can be withheld only in accordance with the statutory scheme. The Supreme Court ultimately directed continuation of the departmental enquiry in that case because a departmental proceeding had already been instituted while the employee was in service and the applicable pension rules expressly permitted its continuation after retirement. In the present case, there was admittedly no such proceeding pending against the appellant when he retired and, therefore, the respondents cannot invoke a power which is not otherwise available under the statutory rules. 9. Learned Senior Advocate, placing strong reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Sundaram v. The 6 Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee & Others, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) Diary No.15448/2020, decided on 17.03.2023, would contend that the factual circumstances of the present case are substantially comparable to that in R. Sundaram (supra). The appellant was appointed on the strength of a certificate issued by the competent authority, continued in service for a long period, was permitted to retire on superannuation and, significantly, there was no pending departmental or judicial proceeding against him on the date of retirement. Thus, even assuming that the caste certificate was subsequently found to be invalid, the respondents could not have mechanically withheld the appellant's entire retiral benefits without first identifying the statutory authority for such withholding. He would further submit that R. Sundaram (supra) also draws an important distinction between a case where the employee has actually procured employment by means of a fake certificate and a case where the certificate was issued/verified by the competent authority but its correctness was subsequently questioned. The Supreme Court expressly clarified that where employment is based on a fake community certificate, the law regarding denial of post-retirement benefits may operate differently; however, where the allegation that the certificate is fake has not been established in accordance with a fair procedure, the employee cannot automatically be deprived of his post-retirement benefits. It is submitted that in the present case there is no finding 7 that the appellant himself forged, fabricated or manipulated the caste certificate. The certificate was issued by the competent authority and was acted upon by the State throughout the appellant's service. The appellant cannot, therefore, be treated on the same footing as a person who knowingly obtained appointment by producing a fabricated certificate. 10. Learned Senior Advocate would also submit that the retiral benefits claimed by the appellant are not a bounty or a discretionary concession. They are benefits accrued on account of the service rendered by him and are protected by the constitutional guarantee under Article 300-A. In the absence of a specific statutory provision authorising forfeiture or withholding, administrative action resulting in deprivation of such benefits is legally unsustainable. The principle was expressly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in R. Sundaram (supra). It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the distinction between the validity of the appointment and the entitlement to retiral benefits. Even if the subsequent cancellation of the caste certificate has consequences regarding the appellant's appointment, it does not automatically follow that every benefit accrued during his long service stands forfeited. The respondents were required to independently establish the statutory basis for withholding pension, gratuity, GPF, leave encashment and GIS. Learned Senior Advocate would therefore submit that the order dated 19.06.2023 withholding the appellant's retiral 8 benefits is unsustainable, particularly when there was no departmental or judicial proceeding pending at the time of retirement and no finding of fraud or misrepresentation against the appellant. The principles laid down in Abdur Rasul Chowdhury (supra) and R. Sundaram (supra) squarely support the appellant's claim for release of his retiral dues. 11. Learned Senior Advocate lastly submits that the appellant, being a retired employee, had no source of livelihood & is currently also been suffering from paralysis attack and the said fact has also been brought before the learned Single Judge and he has also filed the medical documents relating to the same, but the learned Single Judge failed to consider the said fact. Accordingly, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, insofar as it denies the appellant's retiral and pensionary benefits, be set aside, and the respondents be directed to release the appellant's pension, gratuity, GPF, leave encashment, GIS and all other admissible retiral dues along with appropriate interest for the period during which the said benefits have remained withheld. 12. Per contra, Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/ respondent would submit that the appeal is devoid of merit and that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in declining to grant retiral and pensionary benefits to the appellant. It is submitted that the entire claim of the 9 appellant proceeds on the erroneous premise that, in the absence of a specific finding of fraud or misrepresentation against him, the cancellation of his caste certificate would have no consequence upon the appointment obtained by him against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. Such a proposition is contrary to the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned State counsel would submit that the appellant's appointment was not against an open/general category post but was specifically made against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates on the strength of his claim that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste category. The High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, after vigilance enquiry and after affording due opportunity to the appellant, has conclusively found that the appellant does not belong to the Scheduled Caste category of “Banjara” in the State of Chhattisgarh and has accordingly cancelled the caste certificate. The said finding goes to the very root and foundation of the appellant's appointment. It is submitted that the distinction sought to be drawn by the appellant between a “fake/fabricated certificate” and a certificate subsequently found to be invalid is of no assistance to him once the competent Scrutiny Committee, after following the prescribed procedure, has recorded a finding that the appellant does not belong to the reserved category. The question is not merely whether the appellant personally fabricated the document, but whether he was legally entitled to the benefit of appointment reserved for a member of the Scheduled Caste. Once 10 the foundational caste claim stands invalidated, the consequential civil benefits flowing from such reserved appointment cannot be claimed as an indefeasible right. 13. Learned State counsel would place reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Additional General Manager/Human Resource, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 336, wherein the employee had secured appointment against a Scheduled Tribe reserved post on the basis of a caste certificate which was subsequently invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a person secures appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate, he cannot be permitted to retain the benefit of the wrong committed by him and that the services obtained on such basis are liable to be terminated. The Court specifically rejected the contention that the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Milind authorised protection of employment merely because the employee undertook not to claim the reserved status in future. Learned State counsel would submit that the principle emanating from Suresh Ramkrishna Burde (supra) is that the decisive consideration is the foundation of the appointment. If the appointment was secured against a reserved vacancy on the basis of a caste status which is subsequently found to be incorrect by the competent Scrutiny Committee, the employee cannot invoke length of service or equitable considerations to perpetuate the benefit of an appointment to 11 which he was not otherwise entitled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to R. Vishwanatha Pillai and Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar, reiterated that the very foundation of such appointment collapses when the caste claim is invalidated. 14. Placing strong reliance upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Chairman & Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira, reported in (2017) 8 SCC 670, learned State counsel would submit that the said judgment authoritatively holds that invalidation of a caste claim has consequences for an appointment secured on the basis thereof. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a candidate secures appointment on the solemn basis that he belongs to a designated reserved category and the Scrutiny Committee, upon verification, finds the claim to be false, the appointment cannot be protected merely through administrative instructions or equitable considerations. The protection of an ineligible person would operate to the detriment of genuine members of the reserved category. Learned State counsel would further submit that Jagdish Balaram Bahira makes it clear that the withdrawal of the benefit is not dependent upon proof of mens rea in the same manner as a criminal offence. The civil consequence flows from the invalidation of the claim to belong to the reserved category. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasised that reservation is a constitutional and statutory benefit intended for specified communities and that a person found not to belong to such community cannot claim continuation of the 12 benefit merely on the ground that he has rendered long years of service. 15. Learned State counsel would submit that the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai v. Mahesh Kumar Gonnade & Others, reported as 2022 SCC OnLine SC 866, is directly apposite and virtually answers the controversy raised in the present appeal. In that case also, the employee had obtained appointment in Bhilai Steel Plant against a Scheduled Tribe reserved vacancy on the basis of a caste certificate. The High-Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Raipur, after enquiry, found that the employee belonged to the OBC category and not to the Scheduled Tribe category, whereafter his service was terminated and his CPF, gratuity, pension and leave encashment were forfeited. Learned State counsel would submit that in Mahesh Kumar Gonnade (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressly rejected the plea that long service could furnish a basis for equitable protection. The Court noticed that the employee had secured employment against a reserved-category post and that the finding of the Caste Scrutiny Committee remained unchallenged. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ultimately held that an OBC candidate could not be retained against an ST reserved post and, of particular significance to the present controversy, expressly held that the employee was disentitled to any pensionary benefit by virtue of his wrongful appointment. The emoluments already paid were directed not to 13 be recovered, but pensionary benefits were denied. 16. Learned State counsel would further submit that the appellant's submission that there is no finding of personal fabrication or manipulation also cannot, by itself, revive the cancelled caste status. The fact that the appellant may not have physically fabricated the certificate does not establish his entitlement to occupy a post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. In Jagdish Balaram Bahira (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that the withdrawal of civil benefits consequent upon invalidation of a false caste claim is distinct from the question of criminal culpability or mens rea. 17. Learned State counsel would finally submit that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the legal effect of the cancellation of the caste certificate and has rightly declined to grant the appellant the retiral and pensionary benefits claimed by him. The writ appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed, and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference. 18. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material available on record. We have also examined the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the orders passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and the concerned authorities withholding the retiral and pensionary benefits of the appellant. 14 19. At the outset, it is necessary to keep in view the precise controversy which arises for consideration in the present appeal. The question before us is not whether the appellant is presently entitled to claim the status of a Scheduled Caste or whether the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee cancelling his caste certificate can be sustained on the material considered by the Committee. The question which principally arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether, after the appellant had been appointed on the basis of a caste certificate issued by the competent authority, had rendered approximately 34 years of service, had attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2021 and, admittedly, had no departmental or judicial proceeding pending against him on the date of his retirement, his pensionary and retiral benefits could be withheld or forfeited merely because his caste certificate came to be cancelled subsequently. 20. The facts which are not in dispute assume considerable significance. The appellant was appointed as Assistant Director against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates on the strength of a caste certificate issued by the competent authority showing him to belong to the “Banjara” community. The said certificate was acted upon by the State and the appellant was permitted to continue in service for nearly 34 years. He ultimately retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2021. It is also not in dispute that on the date of his retirement, no 15 departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding was pending against him. 21. It is equally material that there is no finding recorded against the appellant that he had himself fabricated, forged or manipulated the caste certificate or that he had obtained the certificate by practising fraud upon the competent authority. The caste certificate in question was not a document privately manufactured by the appellant; rather, it was a certificate issued by the competent statutory authority and was accepted and acted upon by the employer for a substantial part of the appellant's service career. 22. The High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee subsequently, after vigilance enquiry and consideration of the material placed before it, came to the conclusion that the appellant did not belong to the Scheduled Caste category of “Banjara” in the State of Chhattisgarh and cancelled the caste certificate. The consequence of such cancellation may undoubtedly have a bearing upon the appellant's entitlement to claim the Scheduled Caste status in future. However, the issue before us is whether such subsequent cancellation, by itself and without anything more, authorises the respondents to forfeit or withhold the retiral benefits which had accrued to the appellant by reason of the service already rendered by him. In our considered view, the answer must be in the negative. 23. It is well settled that pension is not a bounty or a gratuitous payment which can be withheld at the unilateral discretion of the 16 employer. Pensionary benefits constitute an accrued right, subject to the applicable statutory rules, and are protected as a right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The State cannot deprive a retired employee of such accrued benefits except by authority of law. The principle has been authoritatively recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand & Others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Another, (2013) 12 SCC 210, and has subsequently been reiterated in R. Sundaram v. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee & Others, Civil Appeal Nos.1770-1771 of 2023, decided on 17.03.2023. In R. Sundaram (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the right to receive pension is recognised as a right in property and that pension, gratuity and even leave encashment cannot be withheld in the absence of statutory authority. 24. The principle laid down in Secretary, Forest Department & Others v. Abdur Rasul Chowdhury, (2009) 7 SCC 305, also assumes significance in the present case. The Supreme Court therein considered the power of the employer to withhold or withdraw pension after retirement and examined the same in the context of the statutory pension rules. The ratio of the decision makes it clear that such power is not an inherent or unrestricted power of the employer but must be traceable to the governing statutory provisions and must be exercised strictly within the parameters prescribed therein. Therefore, once the appellant had retired from service and there was no departmental enquiry or 17 judicial proceeding pending against him on the date of retirement, the respondents were required to demonstrate the existence of a statutory provision which specifically authorised them to withhold or forfeit the appellant's pensionary and retiral benefits on the ground on which the same have been withheld. A mere administrative decision to withhold the benefits cannot substitute the statutory authority required in law. 25. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Sundaram (supra) is particularly instructive. In that case also, the employee had entered service on the strength of a community certificate issued by the competent authority, had rendered a long period of service and had retired without his post-retirement benefits being released. The Supreme Court emphasised that the right to pensionary benefits cannot be taken away without proper justification and that deprivation of pension or gratuity must have the sanction of law. The Court ultimately directed release of the post-retirement benefits accrued to the employee on account of his long service. 26. It is true that in paragraph 21 of R. Sundaram (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that where employment is based upon a genuinely fake community certificate, the law may operate differently and post-retirement benefits may not be available. However, the distinction is important. In the present case, there is no finding that the appellant fabricated or forged the caste certificate, nor is there any finding that he personally manipulated 18 the competent authority into issuing such certificate. The certificate was issued by the competent authority and remained the basis of the appellant's appointment and service for nearly 34 years. The mere subsequent invalidation of the certificate cannot, without a separate statutory foundation, be equated with a finding that the appellant had committed fraud or fabricated the certificate. 27. We are conscious of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman & Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira, (2017) 8 SCC 670. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that a person who obtains appointment against a reserved post on the basis of a false caste claim cannot, as a matter of right, continue to occupy the reserved post when the caste claim has been duly invalidated. The Constitution Bench has emphasised the importance of protecting the reservation meant for genuine members of the reserved communities and has held that the invalidation of a caste claim may entail civil consequences in relation to the appointment obtained on its basis. However, the issue of entitlement to continue in a reserved post and the issue of entitlement to accrued post-retirement benefits cannot be mechanically treated as one and the same issue in every case. The present appellant has already retired on superannuation. He is not seeking continuation in the reserved post. He is seeking the pensionary and retiral benefits arising out of the service which he has actually rendered for approximately 34 years. The question, 19 therefore, is not whether the appellant can continue to claim the benefit of the Scheduled Caste reservation for future employment; rather, it is whether the State, in the absence of statutory authority and in the peculiar facts of the present case, can deprive a retired employee of his accrued pension, gratuity, GPF, leave encashment and GIS. 28. The decision in The Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai v. Mahesh Kumar Gonnade & Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 866, relied upon by the learned State counsel, also requires to be considered in its proper factual context. In Mahesh Kumar Gonnade (supra), the employee was found by the High-Level Caste Scrutiny Committee to belong to the OBC category and not to the Scheduled Tribe category. His service was terminated pursuant to the cancellation of the certificate and the employer had thereafter forfeited the service benefits. The Supreme Court, in the circumstances obtaining in that case, held that the employee could not be retained in an ST post and was disentitled to pensionary benefits. 29. The facts of the present case, however, are materially distinguishable. In Mahesh Kumar Gonnade (supra), the employee was still in service when the adverse caste scrutiny finding was acted upon and his service was terminated. The Supreme Court was examining the consequences of a wrongful appointment and the employee's claim to continue in a reserved- category post. In the present case, by contrast, the appellant had 20 already completed approximately 34 years of service and had retired on 30.06.2021 upon attaining the age of superannuation. More importantly, on the date of his retirement, no departmental or judicial proceeding was pending against him. The respondents thereafter sought to withhold his accrued retiral benefits on the basis of the subsequent cancellation of his caste certificate. The distinction is not merely technical. A person who seeks to continue in service against a reserved post despite a final finding that he does not belong to the reserved category stands on an entirely different footing from a retired employee who seeks payment of the pensionary and retiral benefits which have accrued on account of several decades of actual service, particularly where there is no finding of personal fraud, fabrication or misrepresentation and where the employer itself had accepted the certificate throughout the employee's long tenure of service. 30. We are also unable to accept the submission of the learned State counsel that the absence of a finding of personal fraud or misrepresentation is wholly irrelevant. It may be correct that, for determining whether an appointment to a reserved post can survive after the caste claim is invalidated, the civil consequence may follow from the invalidation itself and may not invariably depend upon proof of mens rea in the criminal sense. But the issue before us is narrower. The respondents seek to deprive the appellant of pensionary and retiral benefits. Such deprivation must have a source in law. The absence of fraud or misrepresentation is 21 therefore a highly relevant circumstance while determining whether, after superannuation, the employee can be deprived of the fruits of the service actually rendered by him. 31. In the present case, no material has been brought to our notice demonstrating that, under the service rules applicable to the appellant, the respondents possessed an unfettered power to forfeit pension, gratuity, GPF, leave encashment and GIS merely because the caste certificate of a retired employee was subsequently cancelled. Neither has any departmental proceeding been instituted or concluded against the appellant establishing misconduct warranting forfeiture of his retiral dues. 32. The position becomes still clearer when viewed in the light of Article 300-A of the Constitution. Pension and other retiral benefits, to the extent they have accrued in accordance with the governing service rules, constitute property of the employee. The State cannot deprive a person of such property except by authority of law. In R. Sundaram (supra), the Supreme Court expressly reiterated that pensionary benefits cannot be withheld in the absence of proper justification and statutory authority. 33. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the learned Single Judge fell into error in treating the cancellation of the caste certificate as automatically resulting in forfeiture of all the appellant's pensionary and retiral benefits. The cancellation of the certificate may have its own legal consequences in relation to the appellant's caste status and the validity of the reserved 22 appointment; however, it does not, in the facts of the present case, furnish an independent statutory authority for forfeiting the pension, gratuity, GPF, leave encashment, GIS and other retiral dues accrued to the appellant after nearly 34 years of service. 34. There is yet another aspect which cannot be lost sight of. The appellant has rendered approximately 34 years of service to the State and has already crossed the stage of superannuation. The purpose of pensionary benefits is to secure a measure of financial security to an employee after he ceases to be in active service. The appellant has specifically brought on record that he is presently suffering from paralysis and is in a vulnerable condition requiring medical care and financial support. The said circumstance, though by itself may not determine the legal entitlement, assumes considerable significance while considering the equities of the case and the consequences of continuing to withhold the benefits which have otherwise accrued to him after decades of service. 35. The State, as a model employer, is expected to act fairly and reasonably, particularly in matters concerning post-retirement benefits. The appellant cannot be left without pensionary support indefinitely when his entitlement is sought to be defeated not by any concluded departmental or judicial proceeding finding him guilty of misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation, but solely by reference to a subsequent cancellation of the caste certificate. The prolonged withholding of retiral dues, in the circumstances of the 23 present case, would result in manifest hardship and would run contrary to the constitutional protection attaching to accrued pensionary rights. 36. We may also notice that the appellant is not claiming any benefit for future appointment on the basis of the cancelled caste certificate. Nor is he seeking restoration of the Scheduled Caste status after the decision of the Scrutiny Committee. His claim in the present appeal is confined to the benefits which have accrued to him by virtue of the service rendered by him until his lawful superannuation. The relief sought is thus required to be examined independently from the question of his present caste status. 37. In our considered opinion, the principles laid down in R. Sundaram (supra), have substantial application to the controversy at hand. The Supreme Court in that case was confronted with a retired employee who had rendered 38 years of service and whose post-retirement benefits had been withheld in the backdrop of proceedings concerning his community certificate. The Court recognised the constitutional character of pensionary benefits and ultimately directed payment of the post-retirement benefits accrued to the employee. 38. The ratio of Abdur Rasul Chowdhury (supra) also supports the conclusion that the power to withhold or withdraw pension must be exercised only in accordance with the governing statutory rules. In the absence of a pending departmental or judicial proceeding at the time of retirement and in the absence of a demonstrated 24 statutory provision authorising forfeiture on the ground relied upon by the respondents, the withholding of the appellant's retiral dues cannot be sustained. 39. We are accordingly of the view that the impugned order dated 05.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.1836 of 2022 and WPC No.2026 of 2023, insofar as it upholds the withholding/denial of the appellant's pensionary and retiral benefits, cannot be sustained. 40. Before parting, we make it clear that this judgment is confined to the question of the appellant's entitlement to his accrued retiral and pensionary benefits. We are not expressing any opinion contrary to the order passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 23.12.2022 insofar as the appellant's caste status is concerned, except to the extent necessary for determining whether such cancellation, in the facts of the present case, could by itself justify forfeiture of his accrued retiral benefits. The legal consequences of the cancellation of the caste certificate shall operate in accordance with law, but such cancellation cannot, in the absence of statutory authority and the requisite proceedings, be treated as an automatic forfeiture of the appellant's pensionary and retiral dues. 41. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the present writ appeal deserves to be and is hereby by allowed. 42. The impugned common order dated 05.05.2026 passed by the 25 learned Single Judge in WPS No.1836 of 2022 and WPC No.2026 of 2023, to the extent it denies/withholds the appellant's pensionary and retiral benefits, is hereby set aside. 43. Consequently, the respondents are directed to calculate and release all admissible retiral and pensionary dues of the appellant, in accordance with the applicable service rules, including pension, gratuity, GPF, leave encashment, GIS and all other admissible retiral benefits, after giving due credit for any amount, if already paid. The respondents shall undertake the aforesaid exercise and ensure payment/release of the admissible retiral dues within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the concerned authority. 44. In view of the fact that the appellant has already rendered approximately 34 years of service, has been deprived of his retiral benefits for a considerable period after his superannuation, and is presently suffering from paralysis, the respondents shall accord the matter the highest priority and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment or deferment in implementation of this order. 45. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra