Dr Rajnikant Verma v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi; Dr Rajeshwari Joshi v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 3300/2025 & CM APPL. 15577/2025 W.P.(C) 3316/2025 & CM APPL. 15634/2025.

2. These petitions have been filed, challenging the Order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (PB), New Delhi (‘learned Tribunal’) in OA No. 2146/2023 titled, ‘Dr. Rajni Kant Verma vs Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi’ and in OA No. 2145/2023 titled, ‘Dr. Rajeshwari Joshi vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi’, limited to a challenge that the learned Tribunal has erred in not directing payment of interest to the petitioner herein, from the date when the retiral benefits became due to the petitioner.

3. The above mentioned original applications had been filed by the petitioners before the learned Tribunal complaining therein that the retiral benefits due to them by the respondents have not been paid despite repeated representations.

4. In the Impugned Order, the learned Tribunal has held that admittedly there has been a delay on part of the respondent in releasing the retiral dues of the petitioners.

5. The original applications have therefore, been disposed of by the impugned orders, directing the respondent to release the due retiral benefits to the petitioners. The learned Tribunal has granted a period of three months to the respondents to comply with the said direction, and has further directed that the petitioners shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.[5] per cent per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of three months and in case of further delay beyond a period of six months, then at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

6. By the subsequent Order dated 07.11.2024, however, the learned Tribunal reduced the rate of interest to 7.[5] per cent in case the payment was not made within three months and up to six months from the date of the Order.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the Judgement of this Court in Dr. Priya Vrata vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2025:DHC:1509-DB, submits that in similar circumstances, this Court has modified the directions issued by the learned Tribunal as under:

8. He prays for the similar relief to be extended to the petitioner.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsels for the respondents, who appear on advance notice of these petitions, submit that this Court, taking into account the diverging rates of interest that were being awarded by the learned Tribunal has, in Rajbir Singh vs. Commissioner MCD and Anr., 2025:DHC:735-DB, while remanding the petition back to the learned Tribunal for determining the appropriate rate of interest, directed the Hon’ble Chairman of the learned Tribunal to even consider constituting a Full Bench to look into the matter.

10. The learned counsels for the respondent further place reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Madanlal Sharma (dead) vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., in CA No. 14753/2025, wherein, for a similar claim, interest at the rate of only 6 per cent per annum was granted to the appellant therein.

11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

12. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the retiral benefits, though due to the petitioners were not paid by the respondent claiming financial crisis. For the same, the petitioners could not have been denied their legitimate and legal dues. The petitioner, therefore, was entitled to grant of interest from the date that such retiral benefits became due.

13. Clearly, the learned Tribunal had erred in making the interest payable only three months after the date of the passing of the Impugned Order thereby, in fact, burdening the petitioner for default of the respondent. The grant of interest in such case is not a penalty but a due compensation for the delayed payment.

14. As far as rate of interest is concerned, in a claim similar to that of the petitioner, this Court by its Judgement in Dr. Priya Vrata (supra) has already directed that the rate of interest of 7.[5] per cent awarded by the learned Tribunal would be payable from the date of the superannuation of the petitioner instead of 3 months post the passing of the Order by the learned Tribunal. We do not find the rate of interest awarded to be exorbitant.