The Supreme Court of India has held that its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India can be invoked in exceptional circumstances to shield the retiral and pensionary benefits of an employee with over three decades of service, even while upholding the cancellation of his Scheduled Tribe certificate. A bench comprising Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Aravind Kumar affirmed the concurrent findings of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee and the Bombay High Court invalidating the appellant’s claim to the “Tokre Koli” Scheduled Tribe, but directed that his retiral dues be calculated and disbursed within six months.
Background of the Dispute
The appellant, Shirish Pandharinath Patil, was issued a caste certificate in 1984 certifying him as belonging to the “Tokre Koli” Scheduled Tribe. Based on this certificate, he was appointed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai on October 21, 1994, and subsequently received a promotion in 1999. After misplacing his original certificate, he obtained a fresh caste certificate on October 21, 2000, from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhusawal Division, certifying him as belonging to the “Tokare Koli” Scheduled Tribe.
In 2008, the employer referred the appellant’s caste claim for verification. The Police Vigilance Cell submitted an inquiry report on September 16, 2008, citing old family records wherein his paternal ancestors’ caste was recorded as “Koli”, “Hindu Koli”, and “Hindu Suryawanshi Koli”. A show-cause notice was issued to him on July 10, 2009, to which he submitted replies and representations.
Following multiple hearings and reconstitutions of the Scrutiny Committee, the matter was scheduled on January 2, 2020. On that date, the appellant did not appear in person but submitted a written representation seeking an adjournment due to the unavailability of his advocate and elderly family members. The Scrutiny Committee rejected the adjournment and, by an order dated July 27, 2020, invalidated the caste certificate dated October 21, 2000, cancelling and confiscating it.
The appellant challenged this decision before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (St.) No. 92659 of 2020. Vide judgment dated September 15, 2020, the High Court dismissed the petition. It ruled that the appellant had received sufficient opportunity over the prolonged proceedings and that the rejection of his adjournment request caused no prejudice or breach of natural justice. On merits, the High Court held that pre-constitutional records of the appellant’s father and grandfather recording their caste as “Koli” carried high probative value, disproving his claim to the “Tokre Koli” Scheduled Tribe. The High Court also accepted the Scrutiny Committee’s finding that a caste validity certificate issued to his cousin, Vinod G. Sonavane, had been obtained through misrepresentation.
Submissions of the Parties
Challenging the High Court’s judgment before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued on merits that the Scrutiny Committee had violated principles of natural justice and overlooked key material, including a 7/12 extract of family agricultural land showing it as “tribal land” and his cousin’s caste validity certificate. He also urged that ancestral entries of “Koli” or “Suryawanshi Koli” should not defeat his “Tokre Koli” claim.
In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the appellant had retired, his retiral and pensionary benefits ought to be protected. The appellant placed on record an affidavit dated August 18, 2026, stating that he superannuated on June 30, 2025, has no children, and that no family member has derived any benefit under the impugned certificate. Learned counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s order dated April 1, 2024, in Surekha Baljorsingh Thakur v. Caste Scrutiny Committee & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 4586 of 2024), where post-retirement benefits were granted under Article 142 despite the annulment of a caste certificate.
The respondents opposed the appeal on merits, supporting the findings reached by the Scrutiny Committee and confirmed by the High Court.
The Supreme Court’s Analysis and Precedents
After reviewing the record, the Scrutiny Committee’s order, and the Bombay High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court found no error in the invalidation of the caste claim.
However, examining the facts and equities, the bench noted that the appellant had entered service in 1994 and served for more than three decades until retiring on June 30, 2025. The Court observed that during the pendency of the appeal, he had continued in service pursuant to the interim protection granted on November 18, 2021, and had placed on record an uncontroverted affidavit affirming that he has no children and that no family member derived benefits from the certificate.
Addressing the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the bench observed:
“Generally, invalidation of a caste or tribe claim upon verification would have consequences in law. However, this Court has consistently recognized that, in exceptional circumstances where equities of the case so warrant, the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India may be exercised to do complete justice.”
In this regard, the Court cited the three-judge bench decision in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India & Ors. v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Ors. (2017) 8 SCC 670, which recognized that while appointments secured on an invalid caste certificate ordinarily do not survive, the Court may exercise Article 142 in appropriate cases to render complete justice. The bench also referred to R. Sundaram v. Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee (2023 SCC OnLine SC 287) and Surekha Baljorsingh Thakur v. Caste Scrutiny Committee & Anr., where post-retirement benefits were similarly protected despite caste certificate invalidation.
Operative Directions
Exercising its powers under Article 142, the Supreme Court directed:
“the service rendered by the appellant with respondent No. 3 from 21.10.1994 until his date of retirement on 30.06.2025 shall be protected for the limited purpose of computation and release of his retiral and pensionary benefits, in accordance with the applicable service rules.”
The Court expressly added:
“It is clarified that the protection granted hereinabove shall not amount to validation or recognition of the claim of the appellant of belonging to the ‘Tokre Koli’ Scheduled Tribe. Neither the appellant nor any member of his family shall be entitled to claim any future benefit on the basis of the invalidated caste certificate.”
The appeal was accordingly allowed to this limited extent, maintaining the invalidation of the caste certificate while directing the processing and release of the appellant’s pensionary benefits within six months.
Case Title: Shirish Pandharinath Patil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (@SLP (C) No. 12938 of 2020)
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Date: September 03, 2026
