SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6382

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Satya Prakash – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi – Respondent
O.A./1889/2025



Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench: New Delhi O.A. No. 1889/2025 This the 20th day of May, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)

Satya Prakash, 64 years S/o Shri Ram Kishan Sharma Retd. Driver, R/o H. No. 137, Matiala Village, Matiala, West Delhi, 110050 …Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Kr. Mahur Harkesh Parashar)

Versus

1. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Delhi, 4th Floor SPM Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002

2. The Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Delhi, 15th Floor SPM Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002

3. The Additional Commissioner DEMS, Najafgarh Zone, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, New Delhi ….Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Tushar Ahuja)

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

In the present Original Application filed under Section

19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants seek the following reliefs:-

“ a. Direct the respondents to release the pending retiral dues of the applicant i.e., part of DCRG (Gratuity) amounting to Rs. 5,53,184/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date it fell due till the actual date of payment.

b. Direct the Respondents to pay interest @ 18 % p.a. on delayed payment of partial gratuity which has been paid after a delay of 3 years and 8 months from the date applicant became entitled for payment i.e. on 28.02.2021, the date of his retirement.

c. Award costs of the proceedings; and d. Pass any other order/direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that payment of reitral dues of the applicant has not been released by the respondents. He states that despite sanction order issued on 17.04.2025 (Annexure A-2 (Colly)), no amount has been released to the applicant. He further states that there was a marriage in the family of the applicant for which he had to avail loan.

4. Issue notice. Mr. Tushar Ahuja, learned counsel appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

5. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we proceed t0 dispose of the present matter at admission stage itself as we have been receiving a lot of cases against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for non release of dues due to financial crunch. In view of the same, we direct the respondents to release the pending amount of the applicant within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order as due and payble in accordance with law as per the rule position along with the interest at GPF rate, failing which, the respondents shall pay interest to the at the rate of 12%.

6. The OA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, without going into the merits, at the admission stage itself. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)

Member (A) Member (J)

/ks/

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top