The judgment established that interest on delayed payment of pension is a normal accretion on capital, not a penalty, and that requiring employees to waive their right to interest through affidavits is illegal.

HIMA KOHLI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners herein have preferred the present writ petition seeking inter alia, directions to the respondent/dtc to pay interest on the pensionary benefits @ 12% compounded annually as the same were released to the petitioners belatedly without any justification.

( 2 ) A quick glance at the facts of the case reveals that the petitioners were employed with the respondent/dtc on the post of Traffic supervisors and Conductors and after their retirement, they were entitled for payment of the pensionary benefits. However, the respondent/dtc withheld the pensionary benefits of the petitioners for a period ranging from one year to two years in the case of six petitioners and over 10 years in the case of petitioner no. 7. The details of the petitioners, the date of their retirement, the date of releasing of the pensionary benefits as also the delay that occurred in the payment of the pensionary benefits by the respondent/dtc, as furnished by the petitioners, is reproduced below in the following statement :

Sr. No . Name Designation Date of retirement Date of releasing pensionary benefits

Delay in the payment of pensionary benefits.

Ex. Traffic Supervisor 30. 11. 2001 August, 2003 21 months

2 Ganga Ram -do- 31. 5. 2002 August, 2003 15 months

3 Sothu Ram -do- 30. 4. 2002 October, 2003 18 months

4 Brijmohan -do- 30. 9. 2002 August, 2003 11 months

5 Sabu Ram -do- 31. 5. 2001 August, 2003 15 months

6 Krishan Lal -do- 31. 5. 2002 August, 2003 15 months

7 Dev Raj Singh Ex. Conductor 30. 4. 1993 August, 2003 10 years and 7 months.

1 Roshan Lal Sharma

( 3 ) THE counsel for the petitioners states that the aforesaid action of the respondent/dtc in withholding the pensionary benefits of the petitioners without any justification and delaying the release thereof to the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary and that the petitioners are entitled to interest on the delayed period of payment. Counsel for the petitioners claim that despite the repeated representations made by the petitioners to the respondent/dtc for payment of interest on the pensionary benefits released to them belatedly, the respondent/dtc neither took any action on the said representations, nor took any steps for making the said payment, thus compelling the petitioners to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition.

( 4 ) IN support of their claim for payment of interest, the petitioners have placed reliance on the CCS (Pension) Rules which stipulate that any delay in releasing the payment of pensionary benefits beyond a period of 30 days form the date a payment was due, shall attract 12% penal interest per annum. The petitioners have also relied upon the judgments rendered by this court in the cases of (i) Smt. Krishna Rani Chopra v. Delhi Transport corporation and Anr. in CW 5164/2000, dated 20. 11. 2002, (ii) Gurmukh Singh v. DTC in WP (C) No. 6096/2000, dated 3. 7. 2002 and (iii) Smt. Jagroshni v. DTC in wp (C) No. 6599/1999, dated 2. 4. 2002, wherein this Court held that withholding of arrears of pension by the respondent/dtc was not warranted and as the same put the petitioners therein to considerable hardship, they were entitled to interest on the unpaid amount. The petitioners therein were, therefore, held entitled to interest on the unpaid amount @ 12% compounded annually on the analogy that the respondent/dtc had charged the petitioners compounded interest @ 12% per annum on account of employees' Provident Fund contribution by the respondent.

( 5 ) IN defence, the respondent/dtc submitted that the petitioners have no right to claim interest on the arrears of pension due to delay in disbursement as they had themselves submitted affidavits stating that they would not claim any interest on the arrears of pension. It was further submitted that pursuant to the pension scheme introduced by the respondent/dtc, vide order dated 27. 11. 1992, while the petitioners claimed that they had exerci