Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Bijender Singh

1. This writ petition assails order dated 6 February 2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi[1] in OA 1195/2023.

2. The respondent, as the applicant in the OA, retired from the post of Assistant Municipal Secretary on 31 May 2019. He was aggrieved by the fact that his retiral benefits had not been paid to him. Para 5 of the impugned judgment reads thus:

“the Tribunal”, hereinafter OA is allowed with a direction to the respondent to release the payment of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity at the GPF rate and on the other retiral benefits @12 % per annum from the due date. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs.”

3. The MCD, which has sought to challenge this decision, has raised only one contention in its writ petition, which is that it is facing extreme financial crisis and is not therefore in a position to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. to the respondent.

4. The contention is inherently unbelievable. It cannot be believed that the MCD does not have the funds to pay 12% interest to the respondent, as directed by the learned Tribunal. We are sanguine that the funds available with the MCD are far in excess of the interest which would be payable to the respondent @ 12% on his retiral arrears.

5. Besides, there is no iota of material on record which can support the contention that the MCD is in such dire financial crisis that it is not in a position to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the retiral dues of the respondent which have been unjustly withheld from him.

6. It must be remembered that the survival of a conscientious government servant, and his family, in the evening of their lives, is often dependent on their retiral benefits. Expeditious and prompt disbursal of retiral benefits is, therefore, of the essence, and any unjustified delay in disbursal thereof must be met with a zero tolerance approach.

7. There is a finding of 4 years’ delay, on the part of the MCD, in disbursing the retiral dues of the respondent, which the MCD does not dispute. Inasmuch as the petitioner is aggrieved only by the rate of interest levied by the learned Tribunal on the respondent’s retiral benefits, there is an implied acceptance that this delay is attributable solely to the MCD, for no explainable reason whatsoever.

8. It is worthwhile, here, to extract the Grounds in the present writ petition:

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that the interest on the retiral dues may be also at the GPF rate as was directed in the case of interest on delayed payment on gratuity.

10. There is no justification for this prayer.

11. In the first place, this submission is beyond the pleadings in the writ petition which only pleads financial hardship.

12. Secondly, Rule 68(7)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1968, envisages interest on delayed payment of gratuity at GPF rates, whereas there is no similar dispensation for interest on delayed payment of other retiral benefits.