Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 28.11.2025
DARSHAN KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: In person.
Through: Mr.Puneet Yadav, SPC, Mr.Vivek Nagar, GP
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPLs.74977-78/2025 (Exemption)
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 18112/2025
2. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.169/2017, titled Darshan Kumar Gupta vs. Union of India, which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal with the following findings:
years 1980-81,1981-82 and 1982- 83. While doing so, the respondents shall keep in view that Rs.6000/- was wrongly debited from the account of the applicant in March 1980 and he is entitled for getting bonus on this amount as well. Needless to say that the amount of Rs.5921/- already paid to the applicant towards bonus shall be adjusted against the final amount of bonus payable to the applicant as per this order.”
3. The petitioner has now filed the present petition seeking the following reliefs: “(a) Set aside the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2018 passed by Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 169/2017 titled as Darshan Kumar Gupta Vs. Union of India. (b) Direct respondent to pay to the Petitioner the following legal dues along with 18% per annum compound interest from the date they fell due to the date of final payment: i. Rs. 6000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) which were wrongly debited to GPF A/c no. 536008 in March, 1980. ii. Rs.2000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) missing Credit of 1984-85 in GPF Ale No. 536008 from the date of subscription. iii. Interest of November 1996 and February 2003 on final Settlement amount of GPF A/c 536008 paid on 13.03.2003. iv. One percent bonus on entire balance in GPF a/c no. 536008 from 1980-81 onwards.
(c) Direct the respondent to pay Rs. 3.10 Lacs
(d) Direct the Respondent to pay Rs. 10.00
4. At the outset, we would note that the present petition has been filed highly belatedly; the Impugned Order of the learned Tribunal being of 08.12.2018. We find no reasons for this delay.
5. Be that as it may, we have also considered the prayers made on merits by the petitioner in the present case.
6. The petitioner has alleged that there was a considerable delay on part of the respondents in releasing the amounts of the retiral benefits due to the petitioner. Placing reliance on the various Judgments, the petitioner, who appears in person, submits that the petitioner is entitled to compound interest at market rate for the period of delay.
7. From the reading of the Impugned Order itself, we find that the delay in releasing the entire retiral benefits was admitted by the respondents before the learned Tribunal, however, they stated that on realizing the same, a final settlement amount had been paid to the petitioner on 13.03.2003 alongwith interest at the GPF rate.
8. In the given facts, we therefore, do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the Impugned Order of the learned Tribunal or consider the other prayers made by the petitioner.
9. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J NOVEMBER 28, 2025/Arya/ik