Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajbir Sihgh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 30 October, 2025
(Reserved on 15.10.2025)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
New Delhi.
****
Original Application No. 2821 of 2023
This the 30th day of October, 2025.
(FULL BENCH DECISION)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (J)
Rajbir Singh
Aged 65 years
S/o Bhola Ram
Group C (Post - AMI)
R/o E-125, Krishan Vihar, New Delhi-110086
........ Applicant
By Advocate: Sri J.S. Mann, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mahur,
Mr. Harkesh Parashar and Mr. Mayank Kumar
Versus
1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Through the Commissioner, 9th
Floor, SPM, Civic Centre, New Delhi - 2.
2. The Dy. Controller of Accounts, Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Karol Bagh Zone, Deshbandhu Gupta Rd., Christian Colony, Block
17B, Dev Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi - 110005.
RITU RAJ
SINGH
........ Respondents
By Advocate: Shri L C Singhi, Mr. Tushar Ahuja and
Ms. Punam Singh
2
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) This case has come before this Full Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial), Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (Administrative) and Hon'ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judicial) constituted by the Hon'ble Chairman, Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi and communicated vide order dated 02.04.2025 of the Principal Bench, in view of the judgment and order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 401/2025 and CM Appl 2064/2025 titled Rajbir Singh Vs The Commissioner MCD and Another. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid case, while taking the decision has expressed that "As financial issues are involved and as different Benches of the Tribunal are taking different view in the matters of rate of interest, if the Hon'ble Chairman deems it appropriate, he may even consider constituting a Full Bench to look into the matter. We, however, leave that to the wisdom of the Hon'ble Chairman, who is an eminent retired Chief Justice." Subsequently, the case has come before this Full Bench to adjudicate upon the issue of divergent views expressed by various Benches of the Tribunal regarding the appropriate rate of interest applicable on delayed payment of retiral benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that applicant Rajbir Singh was retired on 30.11.2018 as Assistance Malaria Inspector (AMI) from MCD, Delhi and he is of the contention that the respondents concerned have not paid him the retiral dues on the due date i.e. the date of retirement and thus alleges that despite all the efforts made on his part, all such retirement benefits were paid to him only after 03-04 years of his retirement and furthermore RITU RAJ SINGH the reasonable interest on the delayed payment was also not paid to him.
Learned Division Bench of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal has allowed interest on all delayed payment at the rate of GPF rates.
33. We have heard through video conferencing Mr. J. S. Mann, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mahur along with Mr. Harkesh Parashar and Mr. Mayank Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Mr. L.C. Singhi along with Mr. Tushar Ahuja and Ms. Punam Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in the main case and all the referred matters. Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of the contesting parties.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that generally there are following heads which have to be taken into consideration for deciding the referred issue i.e., Pension, Gratuity, Provident Fund, Leave Encashment, Commutation of Pension, Arrears of 7th CPC as well as GIS, etc. Referring to the aforesaid heads, Shri Yogesh Kumar Mahur, learned counsel for the applicants argued that a moderate / reasonable rate of interest be fixed on the heads on which interest is payable on delayed payments due to administrative lapses. It is also argued that post retiral benefits are paid belatedly despite the fact that there is no fault on the part of the employee concerned. Thus, argued that payment of reasonable rate of interest on delayed payment is must. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the applicants further argued that due to delayed payment of the post retiral dues, in many cases, the employee concerned is forced to take loan from the banks and the interest on the loan amount is exorbitant than the interest rates paid to them while discharging the post retiral dues. To illustrate this fact, learned counsel for the applicants argued that generally the employer allows the interest on GPF in accordance with the rate applicable at that time and on pension and gratuity etc. lower than the GPF rate. Thus, argued that on delayed payment of GPF, Pension and Gratuity etc., interest rate at par with the interest payable on personal loan may be allowed. This will minimize the RITU RAJ hardship faced by the employee concerned due to delayed payment. It is SINGH further argued that if there is no delay in payment of retiral dues, no hardship will be faced by the employee concerned and he will utilize the said amount as per his wishes and further plans. It was also argued that 4 instead of simple interest, compound rate of interest be allowed on the relevant heads. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants have placed reliance on several case laws and also argued that time to time, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has allowed different rate of interest payable on the delayed payment which is in some cases near about 12 to 14% while in some cases, less than 12%.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon following case laws / notifications:
i. Judgment dated 09.01.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.K. Dua Vs State of Haryana & Anr reported in AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1077.
ii. Judgment dated 28.07.2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No 12716 of 2010 titled P.V. Mahadevan Vs The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department.
iii. Judgment dated 18.05.2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ A No 29542 of 1997 titled Sant Lal Vs The Chief Audit Officer & Others.
iv. Judgment dated 03.07.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 7044/2019 titled North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Laxman Singh.
v. Judgment dated 13.09.2021 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 9947/2021 titled East Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Jeet Singh.
vi. Judgment dated 26.11.2024 passed by the Principal Bench of RITU RAJ Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No 1932 of 2024 titled SINGH Sulochna Devi Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Commissioner.5
vii. Judgment dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 7668 of 2024 and CM Appl 31937 of 2024 titled Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Bijender Singh.
viii. Judgment 11.07.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No 9698 of 2025 titled Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr Vs Dorothy John.
ix. Judgment dated 03.03.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No 4468/2022 titled Gagan Bihari Prusty Vs Paradip Port Trust & Ors.
x. Notification dated 01.10.1987 issued by the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.
5. Mr. L C Singhi with Mr Tushar Ahuja and Ms. Punam Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that in many cases, Hon'ble Courts have allowed interest on delayed payment only when compliance of the order of that Court is not made within the stipulated time allowed in it. It is also argued that interest rate is payable on delayed payments according to the item / head wise. On GPF, the interest is paid according to the prevalent rate of interest and on other heads, interest is payable at lower rate to the GPF rate. It is also argued that only simple interest is payable on delayed payment and not compound interest and in no case, expect the GPF, compound interest is payable on delayed payment. Learned counsel for the respondents take note of the provision of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and further argued that only 6% simple interest is allowed under the CPC. It is further argued that interest allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court in different cases cannot be taken as a precedent as facts of each case is different to one another. It is further argued that in no RITU RAJ case the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts have SINGH determined the rate of interest payable in future cases at a fixed rate.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the following case laws:
6i. Judgment dated 29.07.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No 5633 of 2019 titled Rathin Ghosh Vs West Bengal State Electricity Board.
ii. Judgment dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No 4272 of 2024 titled Union of India Vs Raj Rahul Garg & Ors.
iii. Judgment dated 02.03.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No 2463 of 2015 and connected cases titled Assistant General Manager And Ors Vs Radhey Shyam Pandey.
iv. Judgment dated 02.07.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No 4944 of 2013 titled Anil Kumar Mahajan Vs Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, New Delhi and Ors.
v. Judgment dated 03.08.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No 4578 of 2021 titled North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Ram Naresh Sharma and Ors.
vi. Judgment dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No 14753 of 2024 in Madanlal Sharma (Dead) Through Legal Hrs. Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
vii. Judgment dated 23.05.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No 13962 of 2024 titled The Reserve Bank of India Vs M T Mani and Ors.
viii. Judgment dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No 399 of 2021 titled The State of RITU RAJ SINGH Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs Smt Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameshwari 7 ix. Judgment dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP 561 of 2025 titled Vinod Kumar Yadav Vs State of Haryana And Others.
x. Judgment dated 21.04.2015 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ A No 31663 of 2009 titled Suresh Chandra Pandey Vs State of UP through Secretary and Others.
xi. Judgment dated 17.10.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 18813 of 2017 titled Shiv Shankar Lal Vs The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and others.
xii. Judgment dated 02.12.2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No 20442 of 2013 titled Sant Prasad Mishra Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others.
xiii. Judgment dated 31.01.2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No 1177 of 2017 and CM Appl 44557/2017 titled Ram Shani Vs Central Warehousing Corporation xiv. Judgment dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No 3351 of 2017 titled Nau Nihal Singh Rana Vs Union of India and Others.
xv. Judgment dated 06.05.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP 1896 of 2021 titled Labh Singh Vs State of Punjab and others.
xvi. Judgment dated 07.10.2021 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W P (MD) No 18268 of 2021 titled C Kaliyamoorthy Vs The Management Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation RITU RAJ SINGH (Kumbakonam) Ltd.8
xvii. Judgment dated 09.07.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in WPA 6541 of 2024 titled Anil Kumar Naskar Vs Calcutta State Transport Corporation & Ors xviii. Judgment dated 24.07.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA No 584 of 2022 and CM Nos 44675/2022 and 40498/2023 titled Amar Nath Gupta Vs Union of India and Others.
xix. Judgment dated 16.02.2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No 6573 of 2016 titled Rmaesh Kumar Sehgal Vs Canara Bank xx. Judgment dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No 7490 of 2016 titled Dev Ram Jha Vs Shri Moti Nath Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and Ors.
xxi. Judgment dated 18.05.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No 8159 of 2017 titled Vinod Kumar Varshney Vs Coal Mines Provident Fund and Ors.
xxii. Judgment dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No 16947 of 2024 titled Sunil Kumar Uppal Vs The Commissioner, MCD.
xxiii. Judgment dated 11.07.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP (MD) No 16631 of 2023 titled C Alagappan Vs The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd and Another.
xxiv. Judgment dated 21.08.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP (MD) No 20238 of 2023 titled Shanthi Vs The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation RITU RAJ SINGH (Kumbakonam) Ltd and Another.
xxv. Judgment dated 31.01.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP (MD) No 1949 of 2024 titled R Mariappan Vs 9 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd and Another.
xxvi. Judgment dated 07.10.2021 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP (MD) No 18285 of 2021 titled T Subramanian Vs The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd and Another.
xxvii. Judgment dated 20.03.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No 4237 of 2024 titled Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Smt Zarina Naqvi.
xxviii. Judgment dated 06.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No 3811 of 2017 and CM No 16748 of 2017 titled Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr.
xxix. Resolution dated 01.04.2025 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Budget Division) vide F. No 5(3)-B(PD)/2023
6. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the case records and carefully perused the case laws relied upon by the contesting parties as well as written submissions filed by them.
7. At the outset, it will be appropriate to quote the rate(s) of interest which has been allowed by the respective Courts in the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants, which is as follows:
i. In the case of PV Mahadevan (supra), the Apex Court has allowed an interest of 18% per annum to the petitioner concerned.
ii. In the case of Sant Lal (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of RITU RAJ SINGH Allahabad has allowed a compound interest of 12% on the delayed payment of GPF.10
iii. In the case of Laxman Singh (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has allowed interest on the commuted value of pension for the delayed period after deduction of the amount already released towards monthly pension.
iv. In the case of Jeet Singh (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has upheld the order of lower Court thereby allowing an interest of 12% per annum on the delayed payment.
v. In the case of Sulochna Devi (supra), the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal has allowed a simple interest of 12% per annum from the date of entitlement to actual payment.
vi. In the case of Bijender Singh (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has upheld the decision of the lower Court to allow 12% interest on the delayed payment.
Similarly, following are the rate of interest as allowed by the respective Courts in the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents:
i. In the case of Rathin Ghosh (supra), the Apex Court has allowed an interest of 06% if the compliance is not made within the stipulated time.
ii. In the case of Rahul Raj Garg (supra), the Apex Court has allowed an interest of 06% per annum.
iii. In the case of Radhey Shyam Pandey (supra), the Apex Court RITU RAJ has allowed an interest of 06% if the compliance is not made within SINGH the stipulated time.11
iv. In the case of Anil Kumar Mahajan (supra), the Apex Court has allowed an interest of 06% if the compliance is not made within the stipulated time.
v. In the case of M T Mani (supra), the Apex Court has allowed different interest rates on the delayed payment.
vi. In the case of Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari (supra), the Apex Court has reduced the rate of interest on delayed payment from 12% as was allowed by the High Court to 06%.
vii. In the case of Vinod Kumar Yadav (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has allowed an interest of 06% per annum on delayed payment.
viii. In the case of Suresh Chandra Pandey (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has allowed an interest of 06% per annum on delayed payment.
ix. In the case of Shiv Shankar Lal (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Patna has allowed an interest of 06% per annum on delayed payment.
x. In the case of Sant Prasad Mishra (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has allowed an interest of 06% per annum on delayed payment.
xi. In the case of Ram Shani (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has allowed an interest of 06% per annum on delayed RITU RAJ payment.
SINGH 12 xii. In the case of Nau Nihal Singh Rana (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has allowed an interest of 06% per annum on delayed payment.
xiii. In the case of Labh Singh (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has allowed an interest of 06% per annum on the delayed payment.
xiv. In the case of G Kaliyamoorthy (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has allowed an interest of 06% per annum on delayed payment.
xv. In the case of Anil Kumar Naskar (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta has allowed an interest of 06% per annum on the delayed payment.
xvi. In the case of Amar Nath Gupta (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has allowed an interest of 06% per annum on delayed payment.
xvii. In the case of Ramesh Kumar Sehgal (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has allowed an interest of 06% per annum on delayed payment.
xviii. In the case of Dev Ram Jha (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has allowed an interest of 06% per annum on delayed payment thereby reducing it from 12% which was allowed by the lower court.
RITU RAJ xix. In the case of Vinod Kumar Varshney (supra), the Hon'ble SINGH High Court of Delhi has allowed an interest of 06% per annum on delayed payment.13
xx. In the case of Sunil Kumar Uppal (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has allowed that interest to be paid to the petitioner therein at the GPF rate from the date the retiral benefits were due till the date of payment.
xxi. In the case of C Alagappan (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has allowed an interest of 06% per annum to be paid on delayed payment.
xxii. In the case of Shanthi (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has allowed an interest of 06% on delayed payment.
xxiii. In the caes of R Mariappan (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has allowed an interest of 06% per annum to be paid on delayed payment.
xxiv. In the case of T Subramanian (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has allowed an interest of 06% per annum to be paid on delayed payment.
xxv. In the case of Zarina Naqvi (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has allowed an interest of 06% per annum on delayed payment.
xxvi. In the case of Mahesh Kumar Gupta (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has allowed an interest as per the rate applicable to GPF.
xxxvii. As per the order of the GoI, Ministry of Finance, the RITU RAJ interest rate of GPF is 7.1% vide resolution dated 01.04.2025 SINGH (supra).14
8. Apart to the above, learned counsel for the applicants have also placed reliance on the OM issued vide No. 38/64/98-P&PW(F) by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare) on 05.10.1999 to show the rate of interest as 12% per annum on the delayed payment. In rebuttal of the above, learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on the Resolution dated 01.04.2025 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Budget Division) vide F. No 5(3)-B(PD)/2023 showing the rate of interest payable on GPF amount would be 7.1%.
9. First, we come to the submissions raised on behalf of the respondents regarding applicability of provision of Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure. The aforesaid Section governs the interest that a court may grant on a money decree. It allows courts to award interest at a reasonable rate from the date of the suit until the date of payment of the principal amount. It also provides for payment of 06% per annum interest as further interest. First provisio to the provision of Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure also speaks about the rate of interest payable by the public sector banks. If the language used by the legislature in the provision of Section 34 of CPC is taken into consideration, it deals with money decree only and interest is payable from the date of suit. In case of unpaid post retiral dues the interest becomes payable from the date it becomes due. In this respect, law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S K Dua (supra) case may be taken into consideration. On analysis, we are of the view that provision of Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure meant for money decree cannot be applied in regard to granting of interest on post retiral dues to an employee. Scope of both the aspects are different. Interest on post retiral dues is payable RITU RAJ taking into account the special provision under the special law. Thus, SINGH provision of General law cannot override the provisions of special statute.
1510. If the rate of interest allowed in the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the parties are taken into consideration, in none of the cases, the respective Courts have prescribed a specific rate of interest which will be binding in all future cases. The Rule of stare decisis or the doctrine of precedence for future cases cannot be taken on the basis of case laws referred by the parties. In this respect, it will be useful to quote the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India given vide judgment dated 28.03.2025 in the case of The State of Jharkhand & Ors Vs Rukma Kesh Mishra reported in 2025 INSC 412 wherein in para no 35, it was held that:
"35. It has been observed by this Court in several decisions that each decision is an authority for what it decides and not what could logically be deduced therefrom. Mechanical reliance on precedents, as if they are statutes, has been deprecated. Whenever a precedent is cited laying down a principle of law having application to the facts of the case in hand and having binding effect, it is customary and expected of courts to be bound by the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. However, the courts are free not to place blind reliance on whatever precedent is cited by the parties since facts of two cases are not seldom alike. It is the duty of the court, if it considers the precedent not to be applicable, to refer to factual dissimilarities that are found and thereafter to distinguish the precedent cited before it by assigning brief but cogent reasons. It is always well to remember in this context the dictum of this Court in Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India v. Pawan Kumar Dubey25:
RITU RAJ "7. ... It is the rule deducible from the application of law to SINGH the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. One additional or different 16 fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts".
11. Similarly, in the case of S K Dua (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:
"11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. It is not in dispute by and between the parties that the appellant retired from service on June 30, 1998. It is also un-disputed that at the time of retirement from service, the appellant had completed more than three decades in Government Service. Obviously, therefore, he was entitled to retiral benefits in accordance with law. True it is that certain chargesheets/ show cause notices were issued against him and the appellant was called upon to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him. It is, however, the case of the appellant that all those actions had been taken at the instance of Mr. Quraishi against whom serious allegations of malpractices and mis-conduct had been levelled by the appellant which resulted in removal of Mr. Quraishi from the post of Secretary, Irrigation. The said Mr. Quraishi then became Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister. Immediately thereafter charge-sheets were issued to the appellant and proceedings were initiated against him. The fact remains that proceedings were finally dropped and all retiral benefits were extended to the appellant. But it also cannot be denied that those benefits were given to the RITU RAJ appellant after four years. In the circumstances, prima SINGH facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be wellfounded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are Statutory 17 Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rules. If there are Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of \021bounty\022 is, in our opinion, well-founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents."
12. We proceed further to decide the interest payable on GPF amount. In the case of GPF, the payment is calculated on the basis of compound interest. The rate of interest changes year to year and therefore for payment of interest on delayed payment of GPF amount can be understood on the basis of following illustration:
If the GPF amount is paid, say for example, for four years delay, in that case, what was the prevalent rate in those particular years, on that basis, the calculation sheet is made. This can be illustrated in an easy way as follows:
If an employee has retired in the year 2020 and GPF amount is paid in the year 2024 and there is no fault or mistake on the part of the employee concerned, the rate of interest will be calculated year wise in such a manner that, in the year 2020, the total interest will be payable / calculated on the strength of rate of interest applicable in that particular RITU RAJ year on the basis of compound interest. In the subsequent year i.e., 2021, SINGH the interest will be calculated in the same manner on closing balance of previous year i.e., 2020 on the basis of prevalent rate of that year. And similarly, for the next year 2022, the interest will be calculated on the 18 closing balance of the previous year i.e., 2021 and the prevalent rate applicable in the year 2022 and likewise will be the case for the subsequent years 2023 and 2024. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, it is held that interest on delayed payment of GPF amount will be allowed and calculated in the aforesaid manner where there is no fault or mistake on the part of the employee concerned.
13. As far as the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants that employees generally take personal loan to meet with the issue of delayed payment of retiral dues, it is needless to reiterate that in such case, the respective Benches can increase the rate of interest as per its wisdom and no binding precedent can be set in that regard just for the reason that every particular case differs to one another in terms of the facts and circumstances prevailing therein. It could be based on compelling circumstances which could only be analysed on case to case basis.
14. On the issue of interest on pension and gratuity, etc., it will be useful to quote the relevant notification issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare) dated 20.12.2021, vide No. G.S.R. 868(E), the Rule 65 of which runs as follows:
"65. Interest on delayed payment of gratuity, pension and family pension.-
(1) In all cases where provisional pension or provisional family pension or provisional gratuity has not been sanctioned in accordance with these rules or where the payment of pension or family pension or gratuity has been authorised later than the date when its payment becomes due, including in the cases of retirement otherwise than on superannuation, and it is clearly established that the delay in payment RITU RAJ was attributable to administrative reasons or lapses, interest shall be SINGH paid on arrears of pension or family pension or gratuity at the rate and in the manner as applicable to General Provident Fund amount in accordance with the instructions issued from time to time:
Provided that no interest under this sub-rule shall be payable if the 19 delay in payment was caused on account of failure on the part of the Government servant or the pensioner or the member of the family of the Government servant to comply with the procedure laid down by the Government for processing the pension or family pension case. (2) Every case of delayed payment of pension or family pension or gratuity (including provisional pension or family pension or gratuity) in respect of employees of a Ministry or Department and the employees of its attached and subordinate offices shall be considered by the Secretary of that Ministry or Department or any other officer, not below the level of Joint Secretary to the Government of India, authorised by him for this purpose, and where the Secretary or the officer authorised by him is satisfied that the delay in the payment of pension or family pension or gratuity was caused on account of administrative reasons or lapse, the said Secretary or the officer authorised by him shall sanction payment of interest. (3)(a) The administrative Ministry or the Department or the office shall issue sanction for the payment of interest after the Secretary or the officer authorised by him has sanctioned the payment of interest under sub-rule (2).
(b) The payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity or pension or family pension shall be paid within two months from the date on which payment of interest has been sanctioned by Secretary or the officer authorised by him.
(4) In all cases where the payment of interest has been sanctioned by the Secretary of the administrative Ministry or the Department or the officer authorised by him, such Ministry or the Department or Office shall fix the responsibility and take disciplinary action against the Government servant or servants who are found responsible for the delay in the payment of gratuity or pension or family pension on account of administrative lapses: Provided that payment of interest under sub-rule (3) shall be made without waiting for the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings, if any.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-rule (1), the period for which interest shall be payable for the delay in payment RITU RAJ SINGH of pension or gratuity shall be determined in the following manner, namely:-
(a) In the case of a Government servant who retires on superannuation, interest shall be payable from the date following the 20 date of expiry of a period of three months from the date of retirement, up to the date of payment of arrears of pension or gratuity or both;
(b) In the case of a Government servant who retires or is retired otherwise than on superannuation or is absorbed in a public sector undertaking or an autonomous body or dies during service or after retirement, interest shall be payable from the date following the date of expiry of a period of three months from the date of retirement or absorption or death, as the case may be, up to the date of payment of arrears of pension or gratuity;
(c) In the case of a Government servant to whom provisional pension was paid and retirement gratuity was not paid on retirement in accordance with clause (c) of sub-rule (4) of rule 8 on account of departmental or judicial proceedings pending against him on the date of retirement and who is exonerated of all charges on conclusion of such departmental or judicial proceedings, interest shall be payable on retirement gratuity and arrears of pension, if any, from the date following the date of expiry of a period of three months from the date of retirement up to the date of payment of arrears of pension and gratuity;
(d) In the case of a Government servant to whom provisional pension was paid and retirement gratuity was not paid on retirement in accordance with clause (c) of sub-rule (5) of rule 8 on account of departmental or judicial proceedings pending against him on the date of retirement and despite him not having been fully exonerated of all charges on conclusion of such departmental or judicial proceedings, the competent authority decides to allow payment of pension and retirement gratuity, either in full or in part, interest shall be payable on retirement gratuity and arrears of pension, if any, from the date of expiry of a period of three months from the date on which the order for payment of pension and gratuity is issued by the competent authority up to the date of payment of pension and gratuity.
(e) In the case of a Government servant to whom provisional pension was paid and gratuity was not paid on retirement in accordance with clause (c) of sub-rule (5) of rule 8 on account of departmental or RITU RAJ SINGH judicial proceedings pending against him on the date of retirement and such departmental or judicial proceedings are dropped consequent on his death, interest shall be payable on arrears of pension, family pension and gratuity from the date of expiry of a period of three 21 months from the date of death up to the date of payment of such arrears of pension, family pension and gratuity.
(f) Where arrears of pension or gratuity become payable to a Government servant on account of enhancement of the amount of pension authorised or the amount of gratuity paid on retirement consequent on retrospective revision of emoluments or liberalisation in the provisions relating to grant of pension or gratuity, interest shall be payable on arrears of pension or gratuity to the Government servant from the date of expiry of a period of three months from the date of issue of the order revising the emoluments or liberalising the provisions relating to grant of pension or gratuity, as the case may be, up to the date of payment of arrears of pension or gratuity."
15. It will also be useful to quote the provision of Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which runs as follows:
"68. Interest on delayed payment of gratuity (1) In all cases where the payment of gratuity has been authorized later than the date when its payment becomes due, including the cases of retirement otherwise than on superannuation, and it is clearly established that the delay in payment was attributable to administrative reasons or lapses,, interest shall be paid at the rate applicable to General Provident Fund amount in accordance with the instructions issued from time to time:
Provided that the delay in payment was not caused on account of failure on the part of the Government servant to comply with the procedure laid down by the Government for processing his pension papers.
16. It is also evident that if delay in payment of pension and gratuity etc. (including the arrear of pay commission) was attributable to the administrative lapses, interest at the rate as may be specified time to time by the Government of India in this behalf on the aforesaid amount in RITU RAJ respect of the period beyond three months shall be paid under Rule 65 of SINGH the notification dated 20.12.2021, Rule 68 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 at the rate of GPF rate.
2217. As far as payment of penal interest on the delayed payment is concerned, it cannot be recognized in simple delayed payment because, it can only be imposed in such cases where in the time allowed by the Tribunal or by the respective Court, compliance is not made, penal interest may be fixed according to the wisdom of the Tribunal. It will also vary case to case as facts of each case differ with one another depending on the individual circumstances of the case.
18. In this reference, limited issue is to decide the rate of interest on delayed payment of retiral dues i.e., GPF as well as pension, Gratuity etc. in relation to the retired employees of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Since issue in this reference as disclosed hereinabove is relating to the retired employees of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and vide notification dated 22.07.2005 of the Government of India, CCS Pension Rules will be applicable in the present matter as Municipal Corporation of Delhi has also been exempted from the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. As per Rule 65 of the Notification dated 20.12.2021, interest rate on delayed payment of Pension or Family Pension or Gratuity shall be paid in the manner as applicable to GPF amount in accordance with the instructions issued from time to time. Similar is the provision in the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 in Rule 68 which provides that interest shall be paid at the rate applicable to the GPF amount in accordance with the instructions issued from time to time. How the interest will be calculated on delayed payment of GPF has also been illustrated and explained in the preceding paragraph. On delayed payment of Pension, Gratuity, etc., interest shall also be calculated in the same manner as applicable to GPF amount, thus, we are of the view that interest on delayed payment of Pension, Gratuity, etc., which is not attributable to the employee concerned, will be paid at the applicable rate of the GPF in the relevant RITU RAJ years and it will also be calculated in the same manner as has been SINGH disclosed hereinabove.
2319. Thus, in view of the aforesaid deliberations and pleadings, we are of the considered opinion that on the delayed payment of GPF as well as Pension, Gratuity etc., interest would be payable at the rate of GPF for the relevant years. It is clarified that interest on the delayed payment of GPF amount is to be calculated on the basis of compound interest which shall also be applicable on delayed payment of Pension and Gratuity etc.
20. As far as the judgment dated 07.08.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 812 of 2014 titled D Khosla and Company Vs The Union of India which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, ratio laid down in that judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the referred cases as D Khosla (supra) case is relating to compensation amount awarded on the basis of contract agreement whereas the aforesaid quoted Rule 65 specifically provides for interest on delayed payment on the basis of GPF rate. Thus, no benefit can be extended in favour of the respondents with the law laid down in the case of D Khosla (supra), in service matters.
21. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, reference is decided in the terms discussed hereinabove which will be followed on delayed payment of GPF amount as well as Gratuity and other amounts. A copy of this judgment and order be also placed in the respective case files of the OAs which were remanded by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its decision dated 06.02.2025 passed in W.P. (C) No 14406 of 2024 & CM Appl. 60397 of 2024 titled Ishwar Singh Vs MCD, Delhi and Another with W.P. (C) No 14500 of 2024 & CM Appl. 60762 of 2024 titled Jai Bhagwan Vs MCD and Another with W.P. (C) No 14647 of 2024 & CM Appl. 61482 of 2024 titled Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs MCD and Another RITU RAJ with W.P. (C) No 14677 of 2024 & CM Appl. 61637 of 2024 titled SINGH Raghubir Vs MCD and Another with W.P. (C) No 15149 of 2024 & CM Appl. 63550 of 2024 titled Darshan Lal Vs MCD and Another, for decision by this Tribunal. Copy of the judgment be also sent to Principal 24 Registrar of Principal Bench of this Tribunal to be further placed before the Hon'ble the Chairman and judgment passed in the reference be also circulated amongst all the Benches of the Tribunal.
(M.S. Latif) (Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Justice Om Prakash -VII)
Member (J) Member (A) Member (J)
Ritu Raj/-
RITU RAJ
SINGH