40 Years Later: Madras HC Upholds Cancellation Of ST Certificate; Denies Full Pension To Retired Employee

The Madras High Court has dismissed a retired Chennai Port Trust employee's twin petitions seeking full pension and quashing of an order that cancelled his Scheduled Tribe certificate, holding that a person who secures a government job by falsely claiming reserved-category status cannot be allowed to retain that benefit merely because he has since retired.

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy passed the order while disposing of two connected writ petitions filed by A. Jegannathan, who had worked his way up from Mazdoor to Section Superintendent at Chennai Port Trust over a 33-year career before retiring in January 2013.

Jegannathan was appointed in 1982 against a Scheduled Tribe vacancy on the strength of a community certificate identifying him as belonging to the Hindu Urali tribe. The certificate was sent for verification almost immediately, but the process dragged on for nearly four decades through repeated rounds of litigation, remands and transfers between the Vigilance Cell and the State Level Scrutiny Committee. On his retirement, the Chennai Port Trust withheld his full pension, gratuity and terminal benefits, granting only a provisional pension pending the outcome of verification. He then approached the High Court seeking a mandamus directing release of full benefits without waiting for the verification exercise.

While that petition was pending, the State Level Scrutiny Committee, after examining a battery of witnesses including the petitioner's cousins, uncles and sister-in-law, along with school records and Village Administrative Officer reports, held on August 19, 2021 that Jegannathan actually belonged to the Urali Gounder caste, and that his Scheduled Tribe certificate was "bogus and was obtained fraudulently with mala fide intention to derive constitutional benefits meant for a genuine Scheduled Tribe." Jegannathan challenged this order as well, contending that the verification exercise, undertaken decades after his appointment and after his superannuation, was impermissible, and that he was denied a fair hearing on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate V. Vijay Shankar argued that verifying a certificate that was more than forty years old served no useful purpose, and relied on a Division Bench ruling in I. Dorai vs. State Level Scrutiny Committee-III to contend that additional opportunity ought to have been granted in view of the pandemic.

Special Government Pleader Inthu Karunakaran, appearing for the Scrutiny Committee, and advocate R. Karthikeyan for Chennai Port Trust, countered that the issues raised by the petitioner stood conclusively settled by a Full Bench of the High Court in R. Gurusamy vs. Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, which had answered all three questions, including whether verification can continue after retirement, in the affirmative.

Justice Chakravarthy agreed, holding that the Full Bench's reliance on the Supreme Court's ruling in Food Corporation of India vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira was binding, and reproduced its finding that "when a person who does not belong to a caste, tribe or class for whom reservation is meant, seeks to pass off as its member, such a stratagem constitutes a fraud on the Constitution." The Court also rejected the COVID-19 plea, noting that the petitioner's own representations made no mention of the pandemic while seeking time before the Scrutiny Committee, and that the ground appeared to have been "included only as an afterthought."

Pointing to the overwhelming documentary and oral evidence, including statements from close relatives that the family belonged to the Urali Gounder caste and not the Urali Scheduled Tribe, the Court observed that the petitioner had "adopted a conscious and well-calculated strategy" since 1985 of seeking adjournments and avoiding verification to keep enjoying reserved-category benefits. Remanding the matter yet again, the Court said, would turn the writ jurisdiction into "an abuse of process."

Dismissing both writ petitions with no order as to costs, the Court held that Chennai Port Trust was entitled to act upon the Scrutiny Committee's order and pass consequential orders on the petitioner's pension, noting that the litigation stretched back to a first challenge filed in 1985.

Case Title: A. Jegannathan v. The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust and Others with connected matter

Date of Order: September 16, 2026

Bench: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy