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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46371

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MUKESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER & ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C)-16179/2024



$~22

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 18.12.2025

+ W.P.(C) 16179/2024

MUKESH KUMAR .....Petitioner

Through: In Person.

versus

THE COMMISSIONER & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 20.09.2022, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), in O.A. No. 839/2022, titled Mukesh Kumar V. The Commissioner, MCD, And Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein, with the

directions mentioned therein.

2. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents, and even the counter affidavit has not been filed, though an

opportunity for the same was granted.

3. The limited issue that arises in the present petition is that the learned Tribunal, by its Impugned Order, has granted interest in favour of the petitioner only on the remaining amount of retiral benefits payable

by the respondents and not for the entire period of delay and for the amount that had been paid in tranches.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the payment of retiral benefits was delayed by the respondents, interest for the entire period of delay ought to have been granted.

5. The petitioner had filed the above O.A. praying for the following reliefs:

“a) To direct the respondents to release amount of retirement benefits etc. as per details furnished in ANNEXURE -A-1 and monthly pension.

b) To direct the respondents to grant interest @ 12% or as deemed fit in respect of all delayed payments of retirement benefits including pension as per details furnished in ANNEXURE-

A-1.

c) Any other relief or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may· be granted/passed in favor of the applicant and against the respondents.”

6. In Annexure A-1 annexed to the O.A., the petitioner had specifically detailed the following periods of delay in the release of his retiral benefits:

“ ANNEXURE –A-1 Description Amount/date Amount/Date Period Remarks.

of retirement due (in Rs) received (in of delay benefits Rs.)

Retirement Rs.7,58,599/- Received Nil 17 Gratuity months Delay so far CVP RS. 7,84,658/- Received Nil -do-

Leave Rs. 4,66,830/- Received On Encashment 02-06-21 GIS Rs. 11,218/- received On

11-08-21

GPF AMOUNT NOT KNOWN Received NIL
MONTHLY PENSION PENDING SINCE RETIREMENT 01-11-21
NOTE:- Retired on 21.10.2020 TOTAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT : Rs. 20,21,305/- +

GPF amount not known Received :Rs.4,78,048/- approx Due Amount : Rs. 15, 43,527/- + GPF amount not known”

7. The learned Tribunal, however, vide its Impugned Order, without assigning any reasons, has confined the relief of payment of interest only to the amount remaining unpaid out of the petitioner’s retiral benefits.

We quote the final direction of the learned Tribunal as under:

“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.”

8. We are unable to sustain the said direction. Once there is a delay in the payment of retiral benefits, the respondents ought to have been burdened with the liability to pay interest for the period of delay, especially keeping in view the fact that retiral benefits are not a bounty to an employee but a vested right.

9. The Supreme Court, in Uma Agrawal (Dr) v. State of U.P.

(1999) 3 SCC 438, held as under:

5. We have referred in sufficient detail to the Rules and instructions which prescribe the time-schedule for the various steps to be taken in regard to the payment of pension and other retiral benefits. This we have done to remind t

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top