Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Rashmi Arvind Kator vs Revenue on 4 February, 2026
1 OA No. 283/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Mumbai Bench: Mumbai
OA No.283/2024
Order reserved on: 18-11-2025
Order pronounced on: 04-02-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)
Mrs. Rashmi Arvind Kator,
Age 63 years, Lastly working as
Assistant Commissioner(CEO)
Mumbai-1 Commissionerate, C.E.O. Office,
Opp. Churchgate Station, Mumbai
Residing at Hira Bunglow, R.15,
Shreebaug No. 3, Alibaug, Pin-420 201
Email id: [email protected]
-Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. Sai Kumar Ramamurthy)
Versus
1. Union of India through
The Secretary, Department of
Revenue, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, North Block,
New Delhi- 110 011.
2. The Commissioner of CGST and
Central Excise, Raigad, Plot No. 1,
Sector-17, Khandeshwar, Navi
Mumbai- 410 206.
- Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. N.K. Rajpurohit)
Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari
Nicky
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=
5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone=
319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052
97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar,
SERIALNUMBER=
78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6
Kumari
6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 OA No. 283/2024
ORDER
Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
By this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, applicant is assailing Charge Memorandum dated 26th December, 2023 and direction to the respondents to release her retiral benefits.
2. Facts in nutshell are that the applicant was appointed as Inspector in the Department of Central Excise on 13th September, 1988. At the time of joining the department, she had furnished a caste certificate issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan, Magistrate, Dadar, Mumbai, in which it is stated that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe i.e. Hindu Mahadeo Koli. This certificate (Annexure- A-4) was issued to the applicant on 06th August, 1980.
2.1 According to her averments, at the time of applying to the Staff Selection Commission in 1987, the Maharashtra Verification of Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act, 2000) was not in force and there was no Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 OA No. 283/2024 requirement in the Central Government to get her caste certificate validated from the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
2.2 In the year 1987-88, the only requirement was that the caste certificate should be issued by the competent authority. The Maharashtra Act of 2000 came into force on 23rd May, 2001, is restricted to the State of Mahrashtra only.
2.3 The applicant completed her probation successfully by 1990 and had put in 13 years of service on a permanent basis when the Maharashtra State Act, 2000 came into force in May, 2001. The provisions of this Act do not apply to the Central Government servants.
2.4 The applicant contends that she was promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise in the year 2018 and she was relieved by relieving order dated 26th July, 2018 to join the promotional post of Assistant Commissioner, Group-A. 2.5 From the year 2017-18, the respondents started asking the applicant to get her caste certificate validated Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA No. 283/2024 from the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Maharashtra Act, 2000 does not apply to Central Government servants and, therefore, the demand of respondents was not justified. She received letter dated 24th December, 2018 wherein she was asked to submit the Caste Validity Certificate or duly filled Form "E" and "F" online. The said demand was not proper as it was not supported by any Rules or law. She has submitted her Form "E" and "F" offline long time back.
2.6 Respondent no. 1 placed the applicant on suspension by passing the order dated 26th August, 2020.
The applicant was allowed to superannuate on 31st August, 2020. The suspension was ordered 4 days prior to the date of her superannuation.
2.7 The applicant superannuated on 31st August, 2020. At that time, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 were applicable to the applicant. The Rules in force on her superannuation will govern the retirement dues payable to the applicant.
2.8 After two months of her retirement, provisional pension was sanctioned to the applicant under Rule 69 of Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA No. 283/2024 the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. According to her, following amounts were not paid to her:-
(a) Commutation of Pension Rs.20,00,000/-
(b) Gratuity Rs.20,00,000/-
(c) Leave Encashment Rs.5,00,000/-
(d) Regular pension on
Superannuation
2.9 The withholding of retiral dues is against the law
as no departmental proceedings were initiated on the date the applicant was suspended nor any proceedings were initiated while she was in service nor any proceedings were initiated before the sanction of provisional pension.
2.10 The applicant further contends that four years after her retirement, she was served with the chargesheet dated 26th December, 2023 on 08th January, 2024 vide letter dated 04th January, 2024. The chargesheet has been issued under Explanation 1(a) of Rule 8 of the CCS (CCA) Pension Rules, 2021 (New Rules). The said Rules came into force in November, 2021 whereas the applicant superannuated on 31st August, 2020 i.e. 15 months prior thereto. No chargesheet was served during the period from 31st August, 2020 to November, 2021. The chargesheet was served on the applicant on 08th January, 2024. The Central Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA No. 283/2024 Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 (New Rules) are not applicable to her as they were not in force on the date of her superannuation and, therefore, the initiation of departmental proceedings under the New Rules is void ab initio and without jurisdiction.
2.11 The applicant gave reply dated 02nd February, 2024 to the chargesheet. The Rules applicable to the applicant are CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (old Rules) and in terms of Rule 9 of the old Rules, the chargesheet is barred by limitation as it is served after four years of her retirement. Therefore, the applicant has filed this O.A. seeking following reliefs:-
"8.(a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold and declare that the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 are not applicable to the Applicant and the Respondents cannot be take any action against the Applicant under the said Rules;
(b) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the chargesheet memorandum dated 26th December, 2023 (Annexure "A-1");
(c) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondents to release the retiral dues of the Applicant including gratuity, commutation of pension, leave encashment and other retiral dues from the date of superannuation along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1st September, 2000 till actual payment;Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari
Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA No. 283/2024
(d) such other and further order or orders be passed as the facts and circumstances of the case may require;
(e) That costs of this Original Application be provided for."
3. Respondents filed reply wherein they contend that a complaint dated 17th May, 2018 was received by Chief Commissioner Office, CGST Mumbai Zone from the All India Adiwasi Employees Federation (AIAEF), Nagpur regarding investigation and action against Pseudo Scheduled Tribes 'Koli Mahadev' and 'Halba/Halbi etc.' It was alleged in the complaint that non-tribal people viz.
Koshti, MachhimarKoli, MannerwerluDhangad etc. are availing benefits of Scheduled Tribes by obtaining bogus Caste Certificates. This complaint contained a list of 44 officers who had not submitted their caste validity certificate and applicant is one of them.
3.1 According to the respondents, the applicant while joining the services as Inspector, Central Excise had furnished a copy of Caste Certificate dated 06 th August, 1980 issued by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar, Mumbai whereby it is certified that she belongs to Hindu- Mahadeo Koli Tribe which is recognized as Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA No. 283/2024 Scheduled Tribe. She secured promotions to the grades of Superintendent vide order dated 23rd September, 2002 and Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 03rd July, 2018 on the basis of this Scheduled Tribe Certificate.
3.2 It is further alleged that in terms of Maharashtra Act, 2000, the applicant is required to get her Scheduled Tribe Certificate verified and validated from the Caste Scrutiny Committee and submit said Caste Validity Certificate to the Department.
3.3 The applicant was called upon by the letters dated 11th September, 2018, 24th September, 2018, 24th December, 2018 and 17th July, 2020 to produce Caste Validity Certificate. She was directed to submit an application in Form 'E' and an Affidavit in form 'F' for the verification of Caste Certificate issued by the competent authority under Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Act, 2000.
3.4 The applicant vide letter dated 30th July, 2020 informed that she had submitted online application (Form E) for obtaining caste validity certificate and submitted a copy of the online application dated 29th July, 2020 to the Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA No. 283/2024 Caste Scrutiny Committee. On enquiry with the Scrutiny Committee Office by the respondents, it was learnt that the application filed by the applicant came to be rejected because of incorrect tribe. Since the directions of the respondents were not followed by the applicant, she was placed under Suspension in terms of Rule 10(1)(a) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, with immediate effect, vide Order dated 26th August, 2020. The President proposed to hold an enquiry against the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 r/w Rule 8 of the New Rules. And accordingly, Charge Memorandum No. 34/2023 dated 26th December, 2023 for Major Penalty proceedings was issued to the applicant with due approval of the Disciplinary Authority.
3.5 It is further alleged by the respondents that the applicant is governed by New rules as New rules apply to the government servants appointed on or before 31st day of December 2003. The applicant was appointed as Inspector on 3rd November 1988, which is prior to 31st December 2003 and therefore, New Rules apply to the applicant. It is further averred that in terms of rule 8 of New Rules, Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA No. 283/2024 departmental proceedings can be deemed to be instituted against a government servant on the day on which statement of charges has been issued to the government servant or pensioner or if the government servant has been placed under suspension from the date of such suspension.
The applicant was placed under suspension w.e.f. 26th August 2020 and therefore, departmental proceedings have been deemed to be instituted on 26th August 2020.
3.6. The respondents further contend that the applicant had made application online to Caste Scrutiny Committee, but it was rejected on the ground of mentioning of incorrect tribe. The applicant has not given any update as to whether she had made any online application thereafter.
3.7. Charge-sheet cannot be challenged unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the charges cannot be quashed.
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder, the applicant contends that the department cannot insist that only the candidates from the State of Maharashtra should Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA No. 283/2024 get their caste validity certificate from the Caste Scrutiny Committee without prescribing a similar requirement for the reserved community candidates from any other state in India. The issue of retrospective application of the said Act is also an issue which is not decided by any judgement.
When the applicant joined the service on 3rd November, 1988, the Act was not in force and it was brought into force after 12 years. The initial order of the applicant did not contain any such requirement of getting the caste certificate validated through the Caste Scrutiny Committee and therefore, the respondents cannot add a requirement in the appointment letter retrospectively.
4.1 The Maharashtra Act, 2000 nowhere states that the provisions of the State Act will apply to candidates from Maharashtra who are deployed in the Central Government.
It is further contended in the rejoinder that the Maharashtra Act cannot be read in a manner to make it applicable to the Central Government employees who are from the State of Maharashtra which would give it a meaning and interpretation which would violate Article 14 Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA No. 283/2024 of the Constitution of India which amounts to practicing discrimination.
4.2 It is further contended that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar was the competent authority in the year 1980 for issuing caste certificate.
4.3 The appointment letter did not contain any stipulation that the applicant would be required to submit a caste validity certificate and, therefore, the respondents now cannot force the applicant to produce caste validity certificate. The applicant cannot be compelled to get her caste certificate validated after superannuation.
5. Respondents filed their reply to rejoinder. They did not raise any different point than those raised in the reply.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the only allegation against the applicant in the chargesheet is that she did not produce the caste validity certificate under Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA No. 283/2024 the Maharashtra Act of 2000. There is no requirement nor it is a term or condition of her employment that she has to comply with the requirements of the State Act. At the time of her employment, Maharashtra Act of 2000 was not in force. And, therefore, it is not mandatory for her to comply with the provisions of the Maharashtra Act, 2000.
Moreover, applicant is a Central Government employee and the Maharashtra Act, 2000 is a State Act, which is why the Maharashtra Act, 2000 is not applicable to the Central Government employee.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the chargesheet is time barred under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 since alleged misconduct took place in the year 1988 and the chargesheet came to be filed in the year 2024, i.e., after 35 years. He further contended that the applicant retired on 31st January, 2020 and chargesheet came to be served on her on 08th January, 2024 and thus, it is barred by limitation as it has been served on her after four years of her retirement.Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari
Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 OA No. 283/2024
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Maharashtra Act, 2000 is applicable to the employees of Central Government. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the case of Vinod S/o Damodhar Kumbhare vs. Union of India & Ors. in OA Nos. 258 to 261 of 2019, 418, 420 of 2022 and 740, 577 of 2021 (CAT, Mumbai Bench). He further submitted that the applicant had applied to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for validation of her caste certificate. But her application came to be rejected for mentioning incorrect caste in the application.
This itself shows that she does not belong to the caste. He further submitted that there is no delay in initiating inquiry against the applicant.
10. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for their respective parties.
11. The point for consideration in the case at hand is whether the certificate issued in favour of the applicant is valid or not. This certificate (Annexure-A-4) shows that it was issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 OA No. 283/2024 Dadar, Mumbai on 06th August, 1980. In the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil versus Commissioner Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, caste certificate was issued by Judicial Magistrate. Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) held that Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to issue caste certificate. In the case at hand, it has been issued by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and, therefore, it is void. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had the authority to issue caste certificate.
12. The next point for consideration is whether the Maharashtra Act, 2000 is applicable to the employees of the Central Government. This question is no longer res integra. This very question had fallen for consideration in the matter of Vinod S/o Damodhar Kumbhare vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), to which one of us (Justice Mukund G. Sewlikar) was a party. It has been held in this case thus:-
"20. This takes us to the question as to whether Act applies to the Central Government employees. For this Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 OA No. 283/2024 purpose, we will like to reproduce relevant portion of section 6(2) and 6(3) of the Act:-
"6(1)....
6(2) After obtaining the caste certificate from the competent authority, any person desirous of availing of the benefits or concessions provided to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De- notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category for the purposes mentioned in Section 3 may make an application, well in time, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, to the Scrutiny Committee concerned for the verification of such caste certificate and issue of a validity certificate.
6(3) The appointing authority of the Central or State Government, local authority, public sector undertakings, educational institutions, cooperative societies or any other government-aided institutions shall, make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Scrutiny Committees for the verification of the caste certificate and issue of a validity certificate, in case a person selected for an appointment with the Government, local authority, public sector undertakings, educational institutions, cooperative societies or any other government-aided institutions who has not obtained such certificate."
21. Section 6(2) requires the applicant to make an application in the prescribed manner for verification of caste certificate and issue of caste validity certificate. Sub section 3 also requires the appointing authority of the central or state government, local authority, public sector undertakings, etc to make an application for the verification of the caste certificate and issue of a validity certificate. These two provisions clearly indicate that appointing authority has to make an application for verification of caste certificate and issue of a validity certificate. However, appointing authority can make an application only when the employee furnishes the information in form E & F to the appointing authority. Unless the appointing authority gets the information in form E & F, the appointing authority cannot make an application to the caste scrutiny committee. There are two judgements of Bombay High Court on this issue. In the case of Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 17 OA No. 283/2024 Adivasi Samaj Kruti Samiti & Others Versus Union of India, through the Secretary & Ors, W.P. No. 7036/2012 dated 23rd October, 2013 Bombay High Court held thus:-
"7. Thereafter, a legislation in the form of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jaris), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") was brought into force in the State with effect from 18th October, 2001. Even the said Act provides that the caste certificates issued by the competent authority in accordance with Section 4(1) thereof are not conclusive and the same are subject to verification by the Scrutiny Committee. It will be necessary to make a reference to Section 6 of the said Act, Sub- section (3) is relevant for all purposes which reads thus :-
"6. (1)........
(2)........
(3) The appointing authority of the Central or State Government, local authority, public undertakings, educational institutions, Co-operative Societies or any other Government aided institutions shall, make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Scrutiny Committees for the verification of the Caste Certificate and issue of a validity certificate, in case a person selected for an appointment with, the Government, local authority, public sector undertakings, educational institutions, Co-
operative Societies or any other Government aided institutions who has not obtain such certificate."
Sub-section (3) is applicable even to the Union of India. In view of Sub-section (3) of Section 6, the appointing authority of the Central Government is under an obligation to make an application in appropriate form to the Scrutiny Committees for verification of the caste certificates of the persons selected for appointment. Thus, the appointing authority of Union of India will have to follow the mandace under Sub-section (3) of Section 6. In case, the caste claim of the concerned employee is found to be false by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Section 10 of the said Act provides for mandatory Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 18 OA No. 283/2024 consequences. The consequences are such as termination of employment, return of benefits received etc.
8. It is true that the appointing authority is entitled to verify whether the caste certificate produced by an employee is genuine. However, notwithstanding the process of verification of genuineness of the Caste Certificates initiated by the appointing authority, compliance with Sub-section (3) of Section 6 will have to be made by the appointing authorities."
22. These observations clearly lay down that the caste certificates issued by the competent authority in accordance with the section 4(1) thereof are not conclusive and the same are subject to verification by the scrutiny committee. It is further held in this Judgement of Bombay High Court that sub-section 3 is applicable even to Union of India.
23. Another judgement is of the Bombay High Court in the case of Arun Shankar Limje vs The Union of India And Others dated 13th March, 2020 in Writ Petition No. 9885 of 2019 in which the Bombay High Court relying on the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Balaram Bahira (supra) held that the Act is applicable to the public sector undertakings. The relevant observations are contained in para 14:-
"The petitioners have garnered the benefits of reservation at the time of appointment. The caste certificates obtained by them is required to be verified and examined by the scrutiny committee. The veracity of the claim of the petitioners belonging to the reserved category is required to be tested. The petitioners are bound by the State enactment in view of the fact that public sector undertakings are also within the ambit and purview of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chairman and managing Director, Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Jagdish Balaram and others (supra) has observed that service under the Union and State or for that matter under the instrumentalities of the State subserves the public purpose. The Apex Court observed thus-Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari
Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 19 OA No. 283/2024 "46. Service under the Union and the States, or for that matter under the instrumentalities of the State serves a public purpose. These services are instruments of governance. Where the State embarks upon public employment, it is under the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 to follow the principle of equal opportunity.
Affirmative action in our Constitution is part of the quest for substantive equality. Available resources and the opportunities provided in the form of public employment are in contemporary times short of demand and needs. Hence the procedure for selection, and the prescription of eligibility criteria has a significant public element in enabling the State to make a choice amongst competing claims. The selection of ineligible persons is a manifestation of a systemic failure and has a deleterious effect on good governance. Firstly, selection of a person who is not eligible allows someone who is ineligible to gain access to scarce public resources. Secondly, the rights of eligible persons are violated since a person who is not eligible for the post is selected. Thirdly, an illegality is perpetrated by bestowing benefits upon an imposter undeservingly. These effects upon good governance find a similar echo when a person who does not belong to a reserved category passes of as a member of that category and obtains admission to an educational institution. Those for whom the Constitution has made special provisions are as a result ousted when an imposter who does not belong to a reserved category is selected The fraud on the constitution precisely lies in this. Such a consequence must be avoided and stringent steps be taken by the Court to ensure that unjust claims of imposters are not protected in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article
142. The nation cannot live on a lie. Courts play a vital institutional role in preserving the rule of law. The judicial process should not be allowed to be utilised to protect the unscrupulous and to preserve the benefits which have accrued to an imposter on the specious plea of equity. Once the legislature has stepped in, by enacting Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001, the power under Article 142 Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 20 OA No. 283/2024 should not be exercised to defeat legislative prescription. The Constitution Bench in Milind spoke on 28 November 2000. The state law has been enforced from 18 October 2001 Judicial directions must be consistent with law. Several decisions of two Judge benches noticed earlier, failed to take note of Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001. The directions which were issued under Article 142 were on the erroneous inarticulate premise that the area was unregulated I by statute. Shalini noted the statute but misconstrued it."
24. These observations make it amply clear that the Act is applicable even to the employees of the central government."
13. From these observations in the case of Vinod S/o Damodhar Kumbhare vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), it is clear that the Maharashtra Act, 2000 applies to the Central Government employees. Section 6(3) of the Maharashtra Act, 2000 makes it explicitly clear that the Maharashtra Act, 2000 applies to the Central Government employees as well. The judgments of Bombay High Court in the matters of Adivasi Samaj Kruti Samiti & Others vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P. No. 7036/2012 dated 23rd October, 2013 and Arun Shankar Limje vs Union of India & Ors. in Writ Petition No. 9885 of 2019 dated 13th March, 2020 make it amply clear that the provisions of Maharashtra Act, 2000 apply to Central Government employees too.Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari
Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 21 OA No. 283/2024
14. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant had joined the services in the year 1988 at which time the Maharashtra Act, 2000 was not in force and, therefore, it is not necessary for the applicant to get the certificate validated from the Caste Scrutiny Committee. We do not find any force in this submission. We have already held that the Maharashtra Act, 2000 is applicable to the Central Government also. As per Section 4(2) of the Maharashtra Act, 2000, a caste certificate issued by any person, officer or authority other than the Competent Authority shall be invalid. Section 4(2) further states that the caste certificate issued by the competent authority shall be valid only subject to the verification and grant of validity certificate by the scrutiny committee. Therefore, in terms of the above provision of the Maharashtra Act, 2000, the caste certificate issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai is rendered invalid. In addition to that, as indicated hereinabove, the caste certificate issued by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai is without jurisdiction in Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 22 OA No. 283/2024 terms of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra).
15. The next question we have been called upon to decide is whether the enquiry is time barred. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the provisions of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (CCS (Pension) Rules). This Rule is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:-
"Rule 9(2)(b). The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement, or during his re-employment,-
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President,
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution, and..."
16. By invoking this Rule, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the certificate was produced in the year 1988 and the respondents have initiated the enquiry in the year 2023. Thus, the inquiry has been initiated in respect of an event which took place more than four years before such institution i.e. in the year 1988 and, therefore, it is time barred. For this purpose, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the case of Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 23 OA No. 283/2024 Somshekar Kashinath Babaladi versus Union of India & Another in Writ Petition No. 8617 of 2025 (Bombay High Court). The facts in the aforesaid case are totally different than the facts of the present case. In para 11 of the judgment in the case of Somshekar Kashinath Babaladi (supra), it is held thus:-
"11. In the present case, we observe that Respondent no. 1 issued a Memorandum of Charge-sheet dated 02.09.2008 to the Petitioner, thereby alleging that the Petitioner fraudulently claimed and availed the benefits of Reservation available to candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, twice during his employment. Firstly, in the year 1976 for the purpose of his appointment to the post of Inspector of Central Excise and secondly, in 1991 for the purpose of availing promotion on the basis of vacancy in the ST category. It is not disputed that the Petitioner had submitted his caste certificate at the time of his appointment as well as stated that he does not belong to SC/ST Category, but belongs to Nomadic Tribes, Golla, in his Attestation form upon joining the Respondent department. There is no suppression or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. The attestation form clearly mentioned that the petitioner belongs to N.T.. The Petitioner never claimed or projected himself to belong to ST. For whatever reasons, if the department proceeded on the footing that the petitioner belongs to ST, the petitioner cannot be held to be responsible. if the department in its own wisdom considered the petitioner as belonging to ST by conferring the benefit on the petitioner firstly in 1976 at the time of his appointment and secondly in 1991 at the time of his promotion, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the mistake on the part of the department at such a belated stage. The respondents realized for the first time in 2004 that the petitioner was granted the benefits to which he was not entitled to. The VRS application was accepted on 30.09.2004 and the charge-sheet was Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 24 OA No. 283/2024 issued on 02.09.2008. Having accepted the VRS, may be conditionally, the necessary consequence is that the petitioner stood retired and after sometime started receiving provisional pension. The respondents have, in our opinion, completely proceeded on wrong premise that the cause of action is continuous for the purpose of Rule 9. For the event that took place firstly in 1976 and then in 1991, despite all available records and without there being any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, it would be unfair to make the petitioner suffer for no fault of his and fault if any, lies completely with the respondents in overlooking the records. Therefore, for the purpose of Rule 9, the event will have to be regarded as having taken place in 1976 and 1991......."
17. From the above facts, it is clear that the said Somshekar Kashinath Babaladi had in the year 1976 itself produced the caste certificate stating that he belongs to Nomadic Tribes, in his attestation form upon joining the department. There was no suppression or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. The department in its own wisdom considered the petitioner as belonging to ST by conferring the benefit on the petitioner firstly in 1976 at the time of his appointment and secondly, in the year 1991 at the time of his promotion, for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. In these circumstances, the Bombay High Court held that the event should have been regarded as having taken place in 1976 and 1991. In the case at hand, the factual position is totally different. The Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 25 OA No. 283/2024 certificate issued by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is held to be without jurisdiction in terms of Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). Moreover, provisions of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) have been retained in Rule 8 of the New Rules. Therefore, this contention of the applicant looses its significance.
18. In the case of Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Others versus Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Others, (2017) 8 SCC 670, it is held that if the certificate is void, the appointment made on such certificate is void ab initio. In para 48, it is held as under:-
"48. The regime postulated in the judgment of this Court in Madhuri Patil took effect from 2-9- 1994, which was the date of the judgment. Eventually in the State of Maharashtra, these directions received legislative recognition upon the enactment of Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001 which came into force in the State on 18-10-2001. However, it is important to notice that even before the State Legislature stepped in to confer a statutory form to the directions which were issued by this Court in Madhuri Patil the regime, as it then obtained prior to the enactment of the law, also envisaged consequences upon a caste or tribe claim being found to be false upon a verification by the Scrutiny Committee. The cancellation of a certificate would, as a necessary consequence, involve the invalidation of the appointment to a post or admission to an educational institution. Where a candidate had been appointed to a Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari reserved post on the basis of the claim that he or Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 26 OA No. 283/2024 she was a member of the group for which the reservation is intended, the invalidation of the claim to belong to that group would, as a necessary consequence, render the appointment void ab initio. The rationale for this is that a candidate who would otherwise have to compete for a post in the general pool of unreserved seats had secured appointmemt in a more restricted competition confined to the reserved category and usurped a benefit meant for a designated caste, tribe or class. Once it was found that the candidate had obtained admission upon a false representation to belong to the reserved category, the appointment would be vitiated by fraud and would be void ab initio. The falsity of the claim lies in a representation that the candidate belongs to a category of persons for whom the reservation is intended whereas in fact the candidate does not so belong. The reason for depriving the candidate of the benefit which she or he has obtained on the strength of such a claim, is that a person cannot retain the fruits of a false claim on the basis of which a scarce public resource is obtained. The same principle would apply where a candidate secures admission to an educational Institution on the basis of a false claim to belong to a reserved category. A candidate who does so causes detriment to a genuine candidate who actually belongs to the reserved category who is deprived of the seat. For that matter, a detriment is caused to the entire class of persons for whom reservations are intended, the members of which are excluded as a result of an admission granted to an imposter who does not belong to the class. The withdrawal of benefits, either in terms of the revocation of employment or the termination of an admission was hence a necessary corollary of the invalidation of the claim on the basis of which the appointment or admission was obtained. The withdrawal of the benefit was not based on mens rea or the intent underlying the assertion of a false claim. In the case of a criminal prosecution, intent would be necessary. On the other hand, the withdrawal of civil benefits flowed as a logical result of the invalidation of a claim to belong to a group or category for whom the reservation is intended. This was the position under the regime which prevailed following the decision in Madhuri Patil."Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari
Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 27 OA No. 283/2024
19. From these observations of the Supreme Court, it is clear that once a certificate is found to be without jurisdiction, then it is void ab initio. Once it is void ab initio, the appointment obtained on the basis of such a certificate is invalid. For such cases, the employee cannot take benefit of his own wrong by contending that the cause of action arose in the year 1988 when certificate was produced.
20. Another submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the chargesheet has been filed four years after her retirement and, therefore, it is barred by limitation. This submission is stated to be rejected.
Applicant retired on 31st August, 2020 and chargesheet came to be served on the applicant in January, 2024 i.e. within four years of her retirement. Even otherwise, inquiry in terms of Rule 9 of old Rules is deemed to be instituted on the date of suspension of government servant. Applicant was placed under suspension on 28th August, 2020.
Therefore, Chargesheet is within limitation.
Digitally signed by Nicky KumariNicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 28 OA No. 283/2024
21. Even otherwise, the claim of the applicant as regards limitation does not survive because the applicant had made application to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for validation of caste which was rejected on the ground that the applicant has mentioned incorrect tribe. It is difficult to fathom that a person can mention his tribe incorrectly.
This happened in the year 2020 and for this reason also, it cannot be said that the application is barred by limitation.
22. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that inquiry should have been initiated under the old Rules but the inquiry has been initiated under the New Rules.
The applicant retired in the year 2020 and, therefore, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 should have been invoked for initiation of inquiry. He placed reliance on the Rule 87 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. Rule 87 reads thus:-
"87. Repeal and Saving (1) On the commencement of these rules, every rule [ including Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972], regulation or order including Office Memorandum (hereinafter referred to in this rule as the old rule) in force immediately before such commencement shall, in so far as it provides for any of the matters contained in these rules, cease to operate.
(2) Notwithstanding such cesser of operation,-Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari
Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 29 OA No. 283/2024
(a) (i) every nomination for the payment of gratuity; and
(ii) every form regarding the details of family of a Government servant for the purpose of Family Pension;
(iii) every formal application for the sanction of pension, which a Government servant had made or given under the old rule, shall be deemed to have been made or given under the corresponding provisions of these rules.
(b) any nomination for the payment of gratuity or any form regarding the details of family of a Government servant for the purpose of Family Pension required to be made or given by a Government servant under the old rule but not made or given before the commencement of these rules shall be made or given after such commencement in accordance with the provisions of these rules.
(c) any case which pertains to the authorization of pension to a Government servant who had retired before the commencement of these rules and is pending before such commencement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the old rule as if these rules had not been made.
(d) any case which pertains to the authorization of gratuity and family pension to the family of a deceased Government servant or of a deceased pensioner and is pending before the commencement of these rules shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the old rule as if these rules had not been made.
(e) subject to the provisions of Clauses (c) and
(d), anything done or any action taken under the old rule shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of these rules."Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari
Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 30 OA No. 283/2024
23. He invited our attention to clause (c) and (d) of Rule
87. He submitted that in terms of Rule 87(2)(c) and (d), it is clear that the inquiry should have been initiated under the Old Rules.
24. We cannot persuade ourselves to agree with the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. What Rule 87(2)(c) states that any case which pertains to the authorization of pension to a Government servant who had retired before the commencement of these rules and is pending before such commencement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the old rule as if these rules had not been made. The wording of clause (d) of sub-
rule (2) of Rule 87 is also similar. These two sub clauses only state that the authorization of pension to a Government servant who had retired before the commencement of these rules and is pending before such commencement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the old rules and nothing more than that. It only means that while deciding the family pension and gratuity, Pension Rules of 1972 will be considered. It does not say that the inquiry should be initiated under old Rules Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 31 OA No. 283/2024 if the employee retires before the commencement of new Rules.
25. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Maharashtra Act, 2000 cannot be given a retrospective operation. This Act came into force in the year 2000 whereas the appointment of the applicant is of the year 1988. Therefore, Maharashtra Act, 2000 cannot be made applicable to the appointment made in the year 1988 retrospectively. The terms of appointment of the applicant does not contain any requirement that the caste of the applicant will have to be got validated. Genuineness of the caste certificate is verified by the department and thereafter, appointment was given to the applicant.
26. All these submissions in our opinion, are devoid of any merit as we have held on the basis of Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) that certificate issued by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is void as he has no jurisdiction to issue such certificate. Therefore, the question of limitation does not Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 32 OA No. 283/2024 arise to the certificates issued by the authority having no jurisdiction to do so.
27. Learned counsel for the respondents invited our attention to Rule 2 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. The relevant part of Rule 2 is reproduced hereunder:-
"2. Application Save as otherwise provided in these rules, these rules shall apply to the Government servants appointed on or before 31st day of December, 2003, including civilian Government servants in the Defence Services, appointed substantively to civil services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union which are borne on pensionable establishments, but shall not apply to,
(a).....
(b)....
(c).....
(d)....
(e)....
(f)....
(g)....
(h)....."
28. This clause makes it specifically clear that these Rules shall apply to the Government servants appointed on or before 31st December, 2003. The applicant was appointed in the year 1988 i.e. before 31st December, 2003 and, therefore, the applicant will be governed by CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. The respondents did not commit any error in Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari Nicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 33 OA No. 283/2024 invoking these rules. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.
29. Moreover, learned counsel for the applicant could not point out as to what prejudice has been caused to the applicant because of initiation of inquiry under the New Pension Rules of 2021. The only contention raised was that under the Old Pension Rules of 1972, the question of limitation can be raised as in terms of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of Old Pension Rules, inquiry cannot be initiated against any employee in respect of an event which took place more than four years before his date of retirement. We have dealt with this submission elaborately in earlier part of this judgment and, therefore, it needs no repetition. In addition to this, similar provision is made in Rule 8 of New Rules. In this view of the matter, we do not find that the respondents committed any error in initiating enquiry against the applicant for producing a certificate which was issued by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate which we have held to be without jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, OA does not have any substance. Hence, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Digitally signed by Nicky KumariNicky DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 34 OA No. 283/2024
30. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.
(Shri Krishna) (Justice M.G.Sewlikar)
Member (A) Member (J)
'nk'
Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari
Nicky
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b4052 97e23829af5a475, PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc6 Kumari 6bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.06 15:47:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0