The Madras High Court has upheld the cancellation of a Chennai Port Trust employee’s Scheduled Tribe (ST) community certificate after authorities concluded that he belonged to the Urali Gounder community and not the Urali tribe. The court also refused to direct the release of his full pension, gratuity, leave salary and other terminal benefits.

In A. Jegannathan v. The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust & Others, decided on 16 September 2026, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held that the verification of a community certificate could not be blocked merely because the employee had retired or the certificate had been issued decades earlier.

Community certificate was issued in 1980

Jegannathan was issued a community certificate stating that he belonged to the Hindu Urali tribe, which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe in Tamil Nadu. He was subsequently appointed at the Chennai Port Trust against an ST-reserved vacancy and served for more than three decades before retiring on 31 January 2013.

His retirement benefits were not fully released because verification of his community status was pending. He approached the High Court seeking full pension, commutation, gratuity, leave salary and other terminal benefits.

The dispute over his community status, however, was not new. According to the State Level Scrutiny Committee, verification had begun soon after his appointment. The certificate was referred for verification in 1983, and revenue authorities subsequently raised questions about his claimed ST status.

Authorities found he belonged to Urali Gounder community

The records considered by the authorities included the petitioner’s school records, which described his community as Urali Gounder. The Salem Collector had concluded in 1984 that the certificate was not genuine and that the petitioner had failed to establish that he belonged to the Urali tribe.

The matter went through several rounds of litigation. A fresh inquiry was ordered in 1986, and in 1990 the District Collector again concluded that Jegannathan belonged to the Urali Gounder community rather than the Scheduled Tribe. He was discharged from Chennai Port Trust in September 1990, but subsequent legal proceedings kept the issue alive.

After the State Level Scrutiny Committee became the competent authority for such verification, the case was transferred between different authorities. The process ultimately continued until the State Level Scrutiny Committee passed its order on 19 August 2021, concluding that the ST certificate was not genuine.

What did Madras HC say about verification after retirement?

One of Jegannathan’s main arguments was that his community certificate should not have been scrutinised after his retirement and that certificates issued before 1995 should not be reopened.

The High Court rejected this argument, relying on the Madras High Court’s recent Full Bench decision in R. Gurusamy v. Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and Others, decided on 30 July 2026.

The Full Bench had considered three questions: whether community status can be verified after retirement, whether certificates issued or employment granted before 1995 can be scrutinised, and whether an inquiry that began before retirement can continue after retirement. It answered these questions in favour of allowing verification.

The Full Bench held that an appointment secured through a false community certificate cannot acquire validity merely because the employee has subsequently retired. It also held that verification is not barred simply because the certificate or appointment dates back to before 1995.

Court rejects plea for another opportunity

Jegannathan also challenged the 2021 scrutiny committee order on the ground that he had not received a proper opportunity to defend his claim.

The High Court noted that the petitioner had been given opportunities during the long-running proceedings. The court also considered his argument that he could not appear during the Covid-19 pandemic.

However, the judge found that the proceedings had begun much earlier and that the petitioner had repeatedly challenged or delayed the verification process. The court noted that he had himself approached the High Court in 2020, during the pandemic, while his objection to appearing before the scrutiny authorities related to the same period.

The court also found that there was substantial documentary material supporting the scrutiny committee’s conclusion. It therefore declined to send the matter back for another round of proceedings.

What happens to his pension and retirement benefits?

Because the court upheld the scrutiny committee’s finding, it also rejected Jegannathan’s request for full retirement benefits.

The court said that, in light of the Full Bench ruling, he could not claim the employment-related benefits arising from the disputed appointment. It dismissed both writ petitions and allowed Chennai Port Trust to act on the State Level Scrutiny Committee’s 19 August 2021 order and take further action in accordance with law.

The ruling is significant for cases involving old community certificates because it makes clear that retirement by itself does not end a pending verification process. The Full Bench ruling also means that the age of a community certificate or the date of appointment, including cases before 1995, does not by itself create immunity from scrutiny.