An exonerated employee is entitled to arrears of pay, and the court can settle the issue of interest on gratuity, commutation of pension, and leave encashment by referencing previous court decisions.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. These writ petitions, one filed by Chiranji Lal and the other filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) are both directed against the same order dated 15.04.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in T.A. No. 34/2008.

2. Chiranji Lal, who is the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 11684/2009, is aggrieved by the impugned order on account of the fact that he has not been given arrears of pay and only notional promotion was given with effect from 28.1.1993 till 31.08.1995, the date on which he retired. He is claiming arrears of pay for that duration and since the Tribunal did not grant him the prayer with regard to the arrears of pay for that period, he has filed this writ petition before us.

3. Insofar as the DDA is concerned, it is aggrieved by the impugned order on account of the fact that the Tribunal has allowed interest on gratuity, commutation of pension and leave encashment at the GPF rate of interest. According to the DDA, interest was not payable on any of those items. Insofar as the question of grant of arrears of pay for the duration of 28.1.1993 to 31.08.1995 is concerned, the learned counsel for the DDA supported the view taken by the Tribunal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on all the aspects mentioned above. Insofar as the question of payment of interest on gratuity, commutation of pension and leave encashment is concerned, the issue stands settled by several decisions of this court and particularly the decision of this court in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi v. S.K Srivastava-W.P. (C) No.1186/2012 decided on 29.02.2012 as also in the case of Delhi Police v. Balwant Singh-W.P. (C) No. 1227/2012 decided on 13.03.2012.

5. In S.K. Srivastava (supra) this court had observed as under:-

“4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that all other dues had been paid to the respondent along with interest at the GPF rate, but since there was no provision in the leave rules for grant of interest, that is why the present petition has been filed. We do not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that because there are no rules providing for grant of interest, the respondent would not be entitled to the same. There is also no bar to the grant of interest whenever the leave encashment amount is delayed for no fault on the part of the employee. The government has retained the money from the year 2000 till 2011, which, in any event, was due to the respondent in the year 2000 itself, particularly in view of the fact that even the conditions specified in Rule 39(3) had not been complied with. Consequently, grant of interest on the said amount at the GPF rate by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. In any event, we may also point out that between 2000 and 2011, because of inflation, the real value of the amount that was due to the respondent had substantially eroded, the payment of interest at the GPF rate would only be a kind of balm applied to the injury suffered by the respondent. It may, in fact, actually turn out that the petitioner would not be paying anything more in real terms than what it was liable to pay in the year 2000.”

6. In Delhi Police v. Balwant Singh (supra) this court had placed reliance on the decision of S.K. Srivastava (supra) as also upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. & Ors: JT 2000 (5) SC 171, where the Supreme Court had granted interest, inter alia, on the delayed payment of the leave encashment, gratuity and commuted pension @ 18% per annum. Therefore, the question of grant of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity, commutation of pension and leave encashment is settled and the DDA is liable to pay the same. The Supreme Court had even gone to the extent of granting interest @ 18%. However, we feel that in the present case the Tribunal’s direction of granting interest at the GPF rate interest would be appropriate an