Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 10.12.2025
DR. A. K. SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Mr. Rajendra Khatter and Dr. R.
Jayah, Advs.
Through: Mr. Vivekanand Mishra, SPC for R1 and R2
Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Mr. Mainsh Kumar Singh and Mr. Vasu Agarwal, Advs. for UPSC
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in O.A. No. 1794/2024, titled ‘Dr. A.K Singh v. UOI & Ors.’, only to a limited extent that the learned Tribunal did not pass any direction for payment of interest on the delayed payment of the retiral benefits, specifically the Leave Encashment and the Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
2. The learned Tribunal has kept this claim of the petitioner open.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had retired on 31.07.2010. While the amounts towards GPF and CGEGIS were released to the petitioner, the Leave Encashment, DCRG and other retiral benefits, including the pay for the period from 01.10.2000 to 31.07.2010 were released to the petitioner only in 2020- 21, that is, with a considerable delay.
4. He further submits that there is no reason given by the learned Tribunal for not awarding interest on these delayed payments.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no instructions on the matter.
6. We have already granted sufficient time to the respondents to file their counter affidavit. Notice on the petition was issued and accepted by the respondent on 14.07.2025. Further time to file counter affidavit was also granted to the respondents on 01.09.2025. We are, therefore, not inclined to grant further time to the respondents to file their reply.
7. From the above, it is evident that though the petitioner had retired on 31.07.2010, certain portions of his retiral benefits were released to him only in 2020-21. The petitioner was facing a departmental inquiry at the time of his retirement, of which he was fully exonerated, and the charge sheet was dropped vide Orders dated 18.07.2011 and 24.04.2014.
8. Another enquiry against the petitioner was concluded with the enquiry report dated 27.02.2018, wherein it was held that the charges had not been proved against the petitioner. The same was accepted and the case against the petitioner was closed vide Order dated 02.05.2019.
9. The criminal charges against the petitioner were also dropped. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the full amount of the retiral benefits, which have been released to him with a delay.
10. In our view, the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding interest on the said amount. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the petitioner for the delayed payments from the date that they became due to the petitioner till the date of the actual payment.
11. This payment shall be made by the respondent to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today.
12. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J DECEMBER 10, 2025/prg/Av/pb