Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Raj Kumar Singh vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 20 September, 2022
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench: New Delhi O.A. No. 933/2019 New Delhi this the 20th day of September, 2022. Hon'ble Smt. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J) Raj Kumar Singh, 61 years Group-B, MI S/o Late Lakhi Ram, R/o V-243 A, Gali No.19, Vijay Park, Moujpur, Shahdra, Delhi-110053. .... Applicant (By Advocate: Shri J.S. Mann) Versus The Commissioner (East DMC) 419, Udhyog Sadan, Patpatganj Industrial Area, Delhi-110092. Deputy Chief Accountant, 419, Udhyog Sadan, Patpatganj Industrial Area, Delhi-110092. Deputy Chief Accountant (PF), 419, Udhyog Sadan, Patpatganj Industrial Area, Delhi-110092. .... Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Manjeet Singh Reen) ORDER (Oral)
Heard Shri J.S. Mann, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Manjeet Singh Reen, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have admitted to the claims of the applicant and paid the part payment of retirement benefits, i.e., gratuity & GPF only. However, CVP & other retiral dues, if any, have not yet been paid. Learned counsel for applicant has pointed out that the respondents are also liable to pay interest @ 12% on his dues, which is admitted by the learned counsel for respondents. He, however, pleaded that the only reason that the interest could not be paid, was due to shortage of funds. He also stated that MCD follows the principle of seniority in the payment of dues, depending upon availability of funds. However, he has not clarified as to what principle of seniority is followed by the respondents and when the dues of the applicant would be paid.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the OA and draws attention to the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 666/2018 decided on 24.09.2019 wherein the reliefs prayed for by the applicant had been rejected.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is seen that the facts of the present case are identical to the facts in OA No. 4306/2018 decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal on 24.07.2019. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:-
"3. Respondents are directed to pay these dues of the applicant along with 12% per annum admissible rate of interest till the date of payment as per the seniority principle but in no case later than six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Accordingly, the OA is disposed of. No costs.
6. It is also seen that the said order dated 24.07.2019 in O.A. No.4306/2018 was assailed by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of Writ Petition (C) No.9947/2021, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 13.09.2021. The relevant paragraphs of the said order read as under:-
"5. The operative direction, issued in this behalf, is contained in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, which reads as under:
"3. Respondents are directed top [sic: to] pay these dues of the applicant alongwith 12% per annum admissible rate of interest till the date of payment as per payment as per the seniority principle but in no case later than six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Accordingly, the OA is disposed of. No costs."
6-7. xxx xxxx
8. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. Pending application shall stand closed".
7. It cannot be disputed that since the order of this Tribunal dated 24.07.2019 has been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, I have no reason to differ from the same.
8. Accordingly, the OA is allowed. Respondents are directed to release only the remaining amount of retirement benefits and pay the same to the applicant alongwith 12% per annum rate of interest till the date of payment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
(Pratima K. Gupta) Member (J) cc.
4 O.A. No. 933/2019