The Supreme Court has protected the retiral and benefits of a retired municipal engineer whose claim of belonging to the Tokre Koli Scheduled Tribe was invalidated, while leaving the cancellation of his caste certificate undisturbed.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi, in its 3 September 2026 judgment in Shirish Pandharinath Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to protect the benefits of the employee’s more than three decades of service.
The Supreme Court made it clear that the relief was limited to the employee’s retiral and pensionary benefits and did not amount to recognition of his claim that he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe.
Employee served from 1994 until retirement in 2025
According to the Supreme Court judgment, the employee had entered service with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in 1994. He was appointed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) on the basis of a certificate identifying him as belonging to the Tokre Koli Scheduled Tribe.
His caste claim was subsequently examined by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee. The committee invalidated his claim on 27 July 2020. The Bombay High Court later upheld the committee’s decision on 15 September 2020, following which the employee approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court said it found no error in the conclusion reached by the Scrutiny Committee and affirmed by the High Court. In other words, the court did not restore or validate his ST certificate.
During the pendency of the Supreme Court proceedings, however, the employee continued in service under an interim order passed by the court on 18 November 2021. He ultimately retired on 30 June 2025 on reaching the age of superannuation.
LiveLaw reported that the employee then sought protection of hisand pensionary benefits, relying on an earlier Supreme Court decision in Surekha Baljorsingh Thakur v. Caste Scrutiny Committee & Anr.
Supreme Court invokes Article 142 to protect pension
The Supreme Court noted that the employee had entered service in 1994 and continued until his retirement in 2025, which amounted to more than three decades of service.
The court also noted an affidavit filed by the employee stating that he had no children and that none of his family members had derived any benefit from the caste certificate.
“Generally, invalidation of a caste or tribe claim upon verification would have consequences in law,” the Supreme Court said. However, it noted that in exceptional circumstances, where the of a case warrant it, the court can exercise its powers under Article 142 to do complete justice.
The court referred to earlier rulings, including Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira, R. Sundaram v. Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and Surekha Baljorsingh Thakur, where the Supreme Court had considered relief in exceptional circumstances despite invalidation of caste certificates.
“Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case” and noting the employee’s more than three decades of service, the Supreme Court held that it was appropriate to ensure that he was not deprived of his retiral and pensionary benefits.
Accordingly, the court exercised its power under Article 142 and directed that the service rendered by the employee from 21 October 1994 to 30 June 2025 be protected for the limited purpose of calculating and releasing his retiral and pensionary benefits in accordance with the applicable service rules.
The benefits are to be processed and released within six months from the date of the judgment.
However, the Supreme Court imposed an important limitation. It said that the protection granted to the employee does not amount to validation or recognition of his claim of belonging to the Tokre Koli Scheduled Tribe.
The court further clarified that neither the employee nor any member of his family would be entitled to claim any future benefit on the basis of the invalidated caste certificate.
The appeal was therefore partly allowed, with the employee receiving protection only for his retiral and pensionary benefits, while the finding invalidating his ST claim remained intact.