CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No. 3216/2016 Order Reserved on: 25.11.2015 Order Pronounced on: 08.01.2026 Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)

Shri RS Mehta, S/o Sh. N.c. Mehta, Aged about 69 years, R/o A-19/3, Rana Pratap Bagh, New Delhi Retired as Assistant Engineer from NDMC (earlier MCD), under respondents - Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. S.S. Tiwari)

Versus

1. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Sectt., IP Estate, New Delhi 2. Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Shyama Prasad Mukerjee Civic Centre, Jawahar Nehru Road, New Delhi - Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Aman Oberoi)

ORDER Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

The brief facts as narrated by the OA in his case are that the applicant is a retired Assistant Engineer of the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) who has been forced to remain in litigation since 2009 to receive his lawful post-retirement dues. His difficulties began when he was wrongfully dismissed from service on 20.07.2006, only a few months before his normal retirement on 31.03.2007. Because of this illegal dismissal, he was denied salary for the remaining period of service as well as all pensionary and retirement benefits.

2. The applicant challenged the aforesaid dismissal before this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3333/2009. By judgment dated 20.04.2010, the Tribunal allowed the application, set aside the dismissal order, and modified the penalty to a minor penalty of reduction by one stage in pay, to operate prospectively from the date of the Tribunal’s order. The effect of this judgment was that the applicant was deemed to have continued in service till his normal retirement on 31.03.2007, with full restoration of all service and retirement benefits. The Tribunal clearly directed that all consequential benefits be released within two months. In spite of this clear direction, the respondents failed to implement the Tribunal’s order properly. Even after June 2010, the applicant did not receive correct payment of salary arrears, pension, gratuity, leave encashment, commuted pension and other retiral dues. The respondents wrongly treated the minor penalty as retrospective and reduced the applicant’s pay and pension for the past period, which was completely contrary to the Tribunal’s order.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due to this non-compliance, the applicant was compelled to file contempt proceedings (CP No. 876/2010). During the hearing on 04.01.2011, the respondents admitted that the retiral dues had not been paid and sought further time. However, even after this extension, only partial payments were made. Several important benefits, including correct pension fixation, leave encashment and full arrears, remained unpaid. Instead of correcting their mistake, the respondents passed an order dated 15.09.2011, after the contempt proceedings, by which they reduced the applicant’s pay even after his retirement. This order effectively imposed a retrospective penalty and directly violated the Tribunal’s judgment dated 20.04.2010. The applicant was therefore left with no option but to file the present O.A. No. 3216/2016, seeking quashing of the order dated 15.09.2011 and full implementation of the Tribunal’s judgment dated 20.04.2010, including payment of all consequential retirement benefits.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that unfortunately, this application has also remained pending for several years. As of 2025, nearly eighteen years after the applicant’s retirement and fifteen years after the Tribunal’s original judgment, the applicant, now a senior citizen, is still waiting for justice. Even today, several retiral dues of the applicant remain unpaid or incorrectly paid. These include arrears of pay for the period 01.07.2006 to 31.03.2007, leave encashment for 300 days, gratuity, correct fixation of pension, commuted value of pension, pension arrears and inter