Delhi High Court
Jai Bhagwan vs The Commissioner Mcd And Anr on 6 February, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~33 to 37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 14406/2024 & CM APPL. 60397/2024
ISHWAR SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.S. Mann, Mr. Mayank
Kumar and Mr. Sourav Siddhartha, Advs.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR
.....Respondents
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 14500/2024 & CM APPL. 60762/2024
JAI BHAGWAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.S. Mann, Mr. Mayank
Kumar and Mr. Sourav Siddhartha, Advs.
versus
THE COMMISSIONER MCD AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Standing
Counsel for MCD
+ W.P.(C) 14647/2024 & CM APPL. 61482/2024
PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.S. Mann, Mr. Mayank
Kumar and Mr. Sourav Siddhartha, Advs.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Shivangi Kumar and Mr.
Gaurav Kumar Arya, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 14677/2024 & CM APPL. 61637/2024
RAGHUBIR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.S. Mann, Mr. Mayank
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 14406/2024 & other connected cases Page 1 of 5
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.02.2025
15:12:20
Kumar and Mr. Sourav Siddhartha, Advs.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Shivangi Kumar and Mr.
Gaurav Kumar Arya, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 15149/2024 & CM APPL. 63550/2024
DARSHAN LAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.S. Mann, Mr. Mayank
Kumar and Mr. Sourav Siddhartha, Advs.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Shivangi Kumar and Mr.
Gaurav Kumar Arya, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 06.02.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. In all these cases, the petitioners had approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal1 against the failure, on the part of the MCD,
to disburse retiral benefit to him. The Tribunal, in all the cases,
directed disbursal of retiral benefits with interest.
2. Against the orders passed by the Tribunal, the MCD has not
approached this Court. The applicants before the Tribunal have
approached this Court in each case aggrieved by the rate of interest
awarded by the Tribunal.
3. We may note that, in WP(C) 14406/2024, WP(C) 14500/2024,
WP(C)14647/2024 and WP(C) 15149/2024, the Tribunal directed that,
failure to pay retiral dues within three months of the date of the order
of the Tribunal would entitle the petitioners to interest @ 7.5% from
the expiry of three months till the expiry of six months and @ 12%
thereafter till the date of actual payment.
4. In WP(C) 14677/2024, the only difference is that the rate of
interest for the delay between three months from the date of passing of
the judgment of the Tribunal and six months was the GPF rate instead
of 7.5%.
5. Mr. Maan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, points out that,
in another OA before the same Bench of the Tribunal, interest has
been granted by the Tribunal from the date of retirement till the date
of actual payment with further interest @ 12% from the expiry of 2
months from the date of order of Tribunal.
6. We are not concerned with the correctness of that order, as it is
not in challenge. However, it is clear that the Tribunal has, in several
cases, granted interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits from
the date when the benefits were due.
"the Tribunal" hereinafter
7. We do not see why a retiree, who has been deprived of his
retiral benefits, should not be granted interest from the date when the
benefits were due.
8. We, therefore, clearly hold that in such cases, interest would run
from the date when the retiral benefits were due to retiree and not after
the judgment of the Tribunal or after two months or three months from
the rendition of the judgment.
9. Even so, there appears to be some cleavage of opinion with
respect to the rate of interest to which such persons would be entitled.
In some cases, the Tribunal awards 7.5%, in others 12% and in others
at GPF rate.
10. Keeping in mind this difference of view, we have, on 4
February 2025, remanded a matter Rajbir Singh v Commissioner of
MCD and Anr2 before the Hon'ble Chairman of the Tribunal, who
would constitute an appropriate bench to ensure that there is a
uniformity of approach in the matter of rate of interest to be awarded
to such pensioners.
11. We, therefore, remand these matters also to the Tribunal to be
placed before the Hon'ble Chairman along with WP(C) 401/2025 on
19 February 2025.
12. We, however, direct that, in the meanwhile, the respondents
2 WP(C) 401/2025
would comply with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, as the
respondents have not challenge it. In other words, the petitioners
would be entitled to the financial benefits following the impugned
judgment of the Tribunal from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
the order.
13. In the event that the de novo proceedings culminate in any
additional entitlement to interest, the petitioners would also be entitled
to such additional interest.
14. Let the parties appear before the Hon'ble Chairman of the
Tribunal on 19 February 2025.
15. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
FEBRUARY 6, 2025
dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
