(1.)This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 20/11/2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1374 of 2017 whereby the relief, sought for, was declined to the petitioner and his writ petition was dismissed.
 The factual backgrounds of the case are as under:-
The petitioner (appellant herein) was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police w.e.f. 1/10/1989. Since he did not get any promotion, the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) was extended to him. On his completion of 10 years of service, he was favoured with the first upgradation of scale of pay under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 w.e.f. 2/10/1999. Similarly, the second upgradation of scale under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) was also released in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 2/10/2009. Thereafter, by PHQ order No.322/2009 dtd. 29/10/2010, the petitioner was terminated from service pursuant to cancellation of his caste certificate by the State Level Scrutiny Committee [SLSC] under order No.87/SDO/BLN/CTZN/84 dtd. 18/3/1985.
 The petitioner challenged the order of cancellation of his caste certificate by filing a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed. He also filed a review petition which was also dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.1374 of 2017 claiming re-fixation of his pay till the date of his termination from service and release of his pension, GPF, leave salary, gratuity, group insurance etc.
 Relying on the facts of WP(C) No.1181 of 2017 [Shri Subhash Ranjan Bhattacharjee v. The State of Tripura and others], petitioner claimed that he was similarly situated with said Subhash Ranjan Bhattacharjee who was inducted with him in the State Police Service as a Sub-Inspector of Police. The writ petition filed by Shri Subhash Ranjan Bhattacharjee claiming re-fixation of pay was allowed by this High Court by judgment and order dtd. 28/11/2017 passed in WP(C) 1181 of 2017. Petitioner, therefore, claimed his re-fixation of pay in similar line for the past service rendered by him before his termination.
 The State-respondents in their counter affidavit contended that since the petitioner obtained the appointment by playing a fraud, he would not be entitled to any benefit flowing from the post held by him.
 Appearing before the learned Single Judge, counsel of the petitioner argued that even though the termination order of the petitioner reached its finality, there was no bar in releasing the financial benefits claimed by the petitioner on the basis of his earlier status. To persuade the learned Single Judge, counsel of the petitioner relied on the following decisions of the Apex Court:
1. Raju Ramsingh Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and Ors.; reported in (2008) 9 SCC 54,
2. Damodar v. Secretary, Industrial Energy and Labour Department and Ors.; reported in (2010) 15 SCC 537,
3. State of Maharashtra v. Milind; reported in (2001) 1 SCC 4,
4. Raiwad Manojkumar Nivruttirao v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.; reported in (2011) 9 SCC 798,
5. Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Ors. v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors.; reported in (2017) 8 SCC 670,
6. Central Warehousing Corporation v. Jagdishkumar Vithalrao Panjankar and Anr., reported in (2017) 14 SCC 500.
 Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. while opposing the contention of the counsel of the petitioner argued before the learned Single Judge that even though the benefit claimed by the petitioner related to the service rendered by him before his termination from service, he would not be entitled to such benefit since his caste status which was the very basis of his appointment was taken away. To nourish his contention, the learned Addl. G.A. relied on the decision of the Apex Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and others; reported in AIR 2004 SC 1469.
 Having discussed the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the judgments relied on by the counsel of the parties and having considered their submissions, the learned Single Judge declined to grant any relief to the petitioner and dismissed his petition viewing as under:
" The law has been clearly laid down that when the petitioner has obtained his appointment by practicing fraud he cannot be allowed to take advantage of such fraud in entering the service and claiming that he was the holder of that post. Once it is found that the very appointment is illegal and is non-est in the eye of law, no statutory entitlement for salary or consequential rights can arise. If the very appointment is rested on forgery, no statutory right can flow from it. Having taken due note of the law as settled by the apex court, this court cannot accept the reasoning as advanced for the petitioner. Even this court is not inclined to remit the matter to the competent authority for review of their decision."
 Aggrieved petitioner has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge mainly on the following grounds:
(i) The appellant has been terminated from service pursuant to cancellation of his caste certificate. The Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Act, 1991 and the Rules made thereunder do not provide for forfeiture of a past service and the benefits accruing therefrom as a consequence of obtaining appointment in service on the basis of a false community certificate.
(ii) No proceeding was drawn up against the appellant under the CCS CCA Rules, 1965 and no punishment was imposed on him thereunder. Forfeiture of past service upon dismissal or removal from service can be made only when the incumbent is terminated from service pursuant to punishment imposed under CCS CCA Rules. Therefore, forfeiture of the past service of the appellant is totally illegal.
(iii) Under similar circumstances, this High Court by judgment dtd. 3/8/2016 in WP(C) No. 68 of 2015 modified the termination order of the petitioner of that case to compulsory retirement so as to enable him to receive pension.
 Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that considering the length of service rendered by the appellant, his past service may be protected and on the basis of the service rendered by him till the date of his termination, his pension, leave salary and gratuity etc. may be calculated and the same may be released in favour of the appellant. Counsel contends that in the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Act, 1991 and the Rules made thereunder, under which caste certificate of the appellant was cancelled do not provide for forfeiture of the past service and therefore the appellant cannot be deprived of the benefits accrued from his past service. To buttress his contention, counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Ors. v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors.; reported in (2017) 8 SCC 670 and the judgment in the case of Central Warehousing Corporation v. Jagdishkumar Vithalrao Panjankar and Anr.; reported in (2017) 14 SCC 500.
 Mr. D. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents on the other hand contends that termination on the ground of false caste certificate cannot be substituted by an order of compulsory retirement to protect pensionary benefits on the ground of the length of service. Mr. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and others; reported in AIR 2004 SC 1469 in support of his contention. Learned Addl. G.A. further contends that salary, pension and other service benefits spring from a valid and legal appointment. Once such appointment is found illegal and non-est in law, the concerned employee forfeits his right to salary and all consequential right to pension and other monetary benefits. To nourish his contention, counsel has relied on decision of the Apex Court in the State of Bihar and others v. Devendra Sharma; reported in (2020) 15 SCC 466. Mr. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A., therefore, urges the Court to dismiss the appeal.
 There is no dispute that the appellant was appointed in service on the basis of his caste status in the quota reserved for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste. He rendered service for a period of 20 years w.e.f. 1/10/1989 till his termination on 29/10/2009. The question which arises for our consideration is whether the appellant can claim financial benefit for the service rendered by him despite his termination on the ground of obtaining the employment on the basis of a false caste certificate.
 As discussed, the learned Single Judge dwelt on the issue in WP(C) No. 1374 of 2017 and declined to grant relief to the appellant by the impugned judgment.
 In the case of the Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and others (supra) which has been relied upon by the counsel of the petitioner, the individuals who secured access to the benefit of reservation on the basis of false caste certificate invoked jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution on the basis of an assertion that equity arises upon a lapse of time which are capable of being protected by the High Court under Article 126 or by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Apex Court having reiterated the ratio decided in its earlier decisions held that it would be a negation of the rule of law to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 142 to provide relief to the imposter who secures employment in reserved quota ousting a genuine reserved category candidate. In paragraph 66 of the judgment, the Apex Court has held as under:
"66............................When a candidate is found to have put forth a false claim of belonging to a designated caste, tribe or class for whom a benefit is reserved, it would be a negation of the rule of law to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 142 to protect that individual. Societal good lies in ensuring probity. That is the only manner in which the sanctity of the system can be preserved. The legal system cannot be seen as an avenue to support those who make untrue claims to belong to a caste or tribe or socially and educationally backward class. These benefits are provided only to designated castes, tribes or classes in accordance with the constitutional scheme and cannot be usurped by those who do not belong to them. The credibility not merely of the legal system but also of the judicial process will be eroded if such claims are protected in exercise of the constitutional power conferred by Article 142 despite the State law."
 Therefore, the appellant cannot derive any benefit from this judgment of the Apex Court. Similarly, in the case of Central Warehousing Corporation (supra) which has been referred to by the counsel of the appellant, the appellant whose service was terminated on the ground of cancellation of his caste certificate claimed before the High Court that he belonged to Koshtis which was actually a sub-caste of Halba recognized as Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra. The question was decided by the Bombay High Court in favour of the petitioner. Employer brought the issue before the Apex Court in the form of an appeal in which the Apex Court held that Koshtis caste was not a sub-tribe caste of Halba and therefore the petitioner should not have been treated as a Scheduled Tribe. But the Apex Court was of the view that since the judgment of the Bombay High Court had held the field from 1987 onwards till this was reversed by the Apex Court in 2001, the equity was found in favour of the respondent and on the ground of equity, the Apex Court declined to interfere with the judgment of the Bombay High Court but made it clear that the respondent would not be entitled to any future benefit following from the judgment and treating him to be a Koshtis as sub-tribe of Halba. Thus, the factual context in the case of Central Warehousing Corporation (supra) is totally different from the context of the case in hand. Therefore, the said decision does not apply to the present case.
 As noted, it was also contended on behalf of the appellant that since no charge was framed against him and no inquiry was held or penalty was imposed, there is no scope to forfeit the benefits accruing from the service rendered by the appellant till his termination. In his counter arguments, Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. having relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai (supra) contended that Constitutional guarantee under Article 311 of the Constitution will have no application in this case since the appellant had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Counsel has relied on paragraph 15 of the judgment wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
"15.............. It cannot be said that the said void appointment would enable the appellant to claim that he was holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. As appellant had obtained the appointment by playing a fraud, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud in entering the service and claim that he was holder of the post entitled to be dealt with in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or the Rules framed thereunder. Where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or deceit, such an appointment is no appointment in law, in service and in such a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all."
 As noted, the appellant has also relied on the judgment dtd. 3/8/2016 of a coordinate bench of this Court in WP(C) No.68 of 2015 in which the petitioner was terminated from service on the ground that he obtained a government job by producing false SC certificate. High Court found that the petitioner by that time put in service for a period of 28 years. In the said case, High Court also observed that even though, 108 government employees in a lot were found to have secured government job by producing false caste certificate, some of them were dismissed from service and some were given lesser punishment. Petitioner was one of those who were dismissed from service. Having noticed such discrimination, petitioner's dismissal was converted into compulsory retirement by the High Court w.e.f the date of his dismissal and he was allowed pensionary benefits.
 The circumstances which weighed with the Court in WP(C) No.68 of 2015 were different and moreover, apparently, no law has been laid down by this Court in the said case. Therefore, the decision rendered by this Court in WP(C) No.68 of 2015 cannot help the appellant.
 The Apex Court in the case of the State of Bihar and others (Supra) which has been referred to by learned Addl. G.A. has categorically held that if the very appointment is found illegal and is non-est in the eyes of law, no statutory entitlement for salary or consequential rights of pensions and other monetary benefits can arise. We may profitably reproduce the following paragraphs from the said judgment of the Apex Court:
"35. Lastly, it is argued that employees have been working for many years, some for more than 25 years, therefore, humanitarian view should be taken to set aside the order of termination and regularise their services so as to make them entitled to pension and other retirement benefits.
36. We do not find any merit in the said argument. A Full Bench of the High Court in Rita Mishra and Ors. v. Director, Primary Education while dealing with appointment in the Education Department claiming salary despite the fact that letter of appointment was forged, fraudulent or illegal, declined such claim. It was held that the right to salary stricto sensu springs from a legal right to validly hold the post for which salary is claimed. It is a right consequential to a valid appointment to such post. Therefore, where the very root is non-existent, there cannot subsist a branch thereof in the shape of a claim to salary. The rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. Therefore, these rights, including the right to salary, spring from a valid and legal appointment to the post. Once it is found that the very appointment is illegal and is non est in the eye of law, no statutory entitlement for salary or consequential rights of pension and other monetary benefits can arise.
37. Such judgment of the Full Bench was approved by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala. This Court held as under: (SCCp. 116, paras 17-18)
"17. The point was again examined by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Rita Mishra v. Director, Primary Education. The question posed before the Full Bench was whether a public servant was entitled to payment of salary to him for the work done despite the fact that his letter of appointment was forged, fraudulent or illegal. The Full Bench held: (SCC OnLine Pat para13: AIR p. 32, para 13)
"13. It is manifest from the above that the rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. Therefore, these rights, including the right to salary, spring from a valid and legal appointment to the post. Once it is found that the very appointment is illegal and is non est in the eye of the law, no statutory entitlement for salary or consequential rights of pension and other monetary benefits can arise. In particular, if the very appointment is rested on forgery, no statutory right can flow from it."
18. We agree with the view taken by the Patna High Court in the aforesaid cases."
 In the given case, the appellant has tried to impress upon the Court that in view of the length of his service, this Court in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction can protect his pensionary benefits. We do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant because the appellant in this case got the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate by playing a fraud. The Apex Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai (supra) has observed that equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an individual acquired a status by practising fraud (Italics supplied).
 In the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others; reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, the Apex Court was of the same view. In paragraph 16 of the judgment it was held by the Apex Court that a party who seeks equity, must come with clean hands. He who comes to the Court with false claim, cannot plead equity nor the court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour (Italics supplied).
 There is no denial of the fact that the appellant secured the employment in the police department showing him to be a candidate of reserved category (SC) by producing a false caste certificate and by such conduct of him, he encroached upon the legal rights of a genuine member of the said reserved community and negated his just entitlement. In such circumstances, the appellant does not deserve any protection.
 For what has been discussed above, we find no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. In terms of the above, the writ appeal stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.