$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 13.02.2026 + W.P.(C) 6090/2018 BIJENDER KUMAR GAUR .....Petitioner Through: Counsel (Appearance not given) Versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Akhil Mittal, SC-MCD with Ms. Riddhi Jain and Ms.

Shayna Das Pattanayak, Advs.

Mr. Sujeet Kumar Mishra and Mr. Harsh Kumar Pandey, Advs. for R-3 & 5.

Mrs. Anjana Gosain and Ms. Shreya Manjari, Advs. for R-4 & 6.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 09.03.2017, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, (hereinafter ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 2149/2013, whereby, the Petitioner’s claim for interest on delayed payment of salary and retiral dues was declined, while directing the Respondents to consider the payment of the honorarium and bonus for election duty along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the specified period.

2. The Petitioner has also assailed the order dated 19.08.2017 passed in R.A. No. 116/2017 whereby the Review Application preferred against the above order was also dismissed.

3. Succinctly stated, the Petitioner had joined as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC), in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, on 09.07.1971 and on 17.12.1976, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher, for primary school, through direct recruitment process. He was promoted on 16.05.2005, to the post of Headmaster, which was subsequently converted to Principal. He admittedly superannuated on 28.02.2007 and was relieved on 12.03.2007.

4. The Petitioner approach this Court by way of a writ petition bearing No. 5113/1997, seeking release of salary and consequential benefits along with certain dues including honorarium for election duty. After obtaining orders directing release of certain due amounts, lying deposited with the registry of this Court by the Respondents, the Writ was transferred to the learned Tribunal and was renumbered as T.A. No. 363/2009. The said T.A. was disposed of vide order dated 24.04.2009, directing the Respondents to consider the grievance of the Petitioner and further to pay the legitimate dues admissible/payable within a period of one month. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under: -

“We had no benefit of hearing the counsel for the respondents. The applicant submits that in spite of orders being passed by the High Court when the matter was pending there, full settlement of dues have not been paid. The applicant submits that there was no dispute about the claims and there was direction to pay admissible dues.

In view of the Orders passed by the High Court from time to time, we are constrained to observed that the Respondents are not seen to have made any objections about the entitlements of the claims. Therefore, they should ensure that dues, which are legally payable to the applicant should be paid up within a month from today. However, we are not dealing with any other aspects, as any such decisions in the absence of the respondents may not be proper and the applicant himself is vague about the nature of the claims. TA is closed. No costs.”

5. Aggrieved by the non-compliance of the above order, contempt proceedings were initiated by the Petitioner in this Court vide Cont. Case No. 310/2010, against the Respondents, however, this Court vide order dated 03.02.2012, permitted the Petitioner to approach the learned Tribunal again with the following observations: -

“Rejoinder has been filed. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has pointed out various flaws in the computation of his dues. For example, it is stated that 7 entries in the G.P.F account pertaining to the year 1983 are missing and two entries of the year 1988 are missing. He further submits that the respondent deposited lumpsum arrears in the GPF account without any interest. Various o