Disposed

Ved Prakash Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Mcd)

CAT14 Sept 2026O.A./2842/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Central Administrative Tribunal directed the competent authority of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to verify and determine the applicant's claim for interest on delayed payment of pension, gratuity, and other retirement benefits. The Tribunal refused to recalculations the claim itself and ordered the authority to pass a reasoned order and release admissible amounts within three months.

What did the court decide?

The competent authority directed to verify the claim, pass a reasoned order, and release admissible amounts within three months.

Ved Prakash Gupta vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | CAT (2026)

OA No. 2842/2024

Item No. 11 (C-3)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶5

OA No. 2842/2024

¶6

This the 14^th Day of September, 2026

¶7

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

¶8

VED PRAKASH GUPTA

¶9

S/o Late Shri Murari Lal H.No. 212, Nagin Lake Apartment, Peeragarhi, New Delhi 110 087

¶10

.…Applicant

¶11

(By Advocate : Mr. Dharam Veer Singh)

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI DR. SHYAMA PRASAD MUKHERJEE CIVIC CENTER, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI-110002

¶14

THE DY COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ROHINI ZONE, P496+276, ROHINI INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SECTOR 5, ROHINI NEW DELHI - 110085

¶15

THE DY CHIEF ACCOUNTANT O/0 DY COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ROHINI ZONE, P496+276, ROHINI INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SECTOR 5, ROHINI NEW DELHI110085

¶16

.... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(By Advocate : Mr. D S Mahendru)

¶18

ARTI 2026.09.16 16:39:46 +05'30'

ARTI

OA No. 2842/2024

Item No. 11 (C-3)

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

¶25

The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the

¶26

following relief(s):-

¶27

“a) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to implement pension payment order dated 13.11.2017 fully thereby releasing a sum of Rs. 5,24,483/-towards arrears of 7th CPC and part payment of gratuity, COP and interest on the part payment of COP amount of Rs. 4,25,600/- & outstanding dues, etc. by the respondents as per details furnished in the enclosure which is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-11; and b) To direct the respondents to grant interest @18% or as may be deemed fit and proper in respect of all delayed payments of balance outstanding of retiral benefits and other dues etc. as per details in ANNEXURE A-11.

¶28

The applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking, inter alia, payment of interest on the delayed release of his retiral dues, including commutation of pension, gratuity and leave encashment, as well as the arrears arising out of pay fixation pursuant to the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission. The brief facts of the case, as borne out from the pleadings, are that the applicant joined the services of the respondent-Corporation on 06.03.1978 and, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service on 31.08.2017 while working as Malaria Inspector, Rohini Zone, Delhi.

¶29

It is the case of the applicant that, although his retiral dues became payable upon his retirement, the same were not released within the prescribed time. In particular, the applicant states that against the commutation value of pension amounting to

¶30

ARTI 2026.09.16 16:39:46 +05'30'

ARTI

OA No. 2842/2024

Item No. 11 (C-3)

Rs.13,76,592/-, an amount of Rs.9,50,992/- was paid on 09.07.2019, whereas the balance amount of Rs.4,25,600/- was paid without the interest claimed thereon.

¶36

The applicant has further stated that gratuity amounting to Rs.12,12,750/became due on 31.08.2017, but an amount of Rs.12,01,200/- only was paid on 09.07.2019, leaving a short payment of Rs.11,550/-. Likewise, against leave encashment of Rs.7,35,000/-, an amount of Rs.7,28,000/- was paid on 18.01.2018 and the balance amount of Rs.7,000/- was subsequently paid on 07.02.2019.

¶37

The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No.3263/2018, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 26.03.2019. It is stated that, thereafter, an amount of Rs.2,72,904/- towards interest was paid to the applicant on 09.05.2022. The applicant, however, claims that the aforesaid payment did not fully satisfy his entitlement towards interest on the delayed retiral dues.

¶38

The applicant thereafter pursued the matter by way of applications/representations under the Right to Information Act. He submitted an application dated 28.02.2023, followed by an appeal dated 12.04.2023. He again addressed the respondent on 21.08.2023 seeking information regarding compliance with the order dated 26.03.2019 passed in O.A. No.3263/2018. The replies furnished by the respondents, according to the applicant, did not satisfactorily address his claim. A further appeal was preferred on 18.10.2023 and, thereafter, another appeal was preferred on 07.02.2024 against the reply dated 10.01.2024.

¶39

ARTI 2026.09.16 16:39:46 +05'30'

ARTI

OA No. 2842/2024

Item No. 11 (C-3)

Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed on record a tabulated statement/calculation sheet showing the amounts claimed towards interest on the delayed payment of various retiral and other service dues. The said statement contains separate calculations in respect of commutation of pension, gratuity, leave encashment, arrears arising out of the 7th Pay Commission, bonus and DA arrears.

¶45

From the calculation statement placed on record by the respondents, it is noticed that, in respect of commutation of pension, the applicant has indicated the total commutation amount of Rs.13,76,592/-, out of which Rs.9,50,992/- was stated to have been paid on 09.07.2019, while the balance amount of Rs.4,25,600/was subsequently paid. The statement further sets out the interest claimed by the applicant for the respective periods of delay. The applicant has also shown an amount of Rs.2,72,904/- as interest already received pursuant to the earlier proceedings and has claimed the balance amount of interest as reflected in the said calculation.

¶46

Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record, the calculation sheet contains an item-wise statement in respect of gratuity and leave encashment. In respect of gratuity, an amount of Rs.12,12,750/- is shown as the amount due, against which Rs.12,01,200/- is stated to have been paid on 09.07.2019, with a short payment of Rs.11,550/-. In respect of leave encashment, the applicant has shown an amount of Rs.7,35,000/- as due, against which Rs.7,28,000/- was received on 18.01.2018 and the balance amount of Rs.7,000/- was stated to have

¶47

ARTI 2026.09.16 16:39:46 +05'30'

ARTI

OA No. 2842/2024

Item No. 11 (C-3)

been received subsequently. The calculation sheet thereafter sets out the interest claimed for the respective periods of delay.

¶53

The said statement further contains calculations with regard to arrears arising from the 7th Pay Commission, bonus and DA arrears, including the interest claimed by the applicant thereon. The applicant has thus furnished a consolidated, item-wise calculation of the interest allegedly payable to him on account of delayed release of the aforesaid dues.

¶54

We have perused the aforesaid calculation sheets. However, the figures reflected therein are the calculations furnished by the applicant and would necessarily require verification by the respondents with reference to the service record, pension papers, dates on which the respective amounts became due, dates of actual disbursement, amounts already paid towards interest and the directions contained in the order dated 26.03.2019 passed in O.A. No.3263/2018.

¶55

In these circumstances, rather than undertaking the exercise of recalculating the individual components of the applicant's claim in the present proceedings, we deem it appropriate to direct the competent authority of the respondentCorporation to examine the claim in its entirety.

¶56

Accordingly, the competent authority of the respondent-Corporation shall consider the item-wise claim as set out in the calculation sheets placed on record by the applicant, including his claim relating to commutation of pension, gratuity, leave encashment, 7th Pay Commission arrears, bonus and DA arrears. The

¶57

ARTI 2026.09.16 16:39:46 +05'30'

ARTI

OA No. 2842/2024

Item No. 11 (C-3)

authority shall verify each component with reference to the relevant official records and the applicable rules, and shall also give due credit to the amounts already paid to the applicant, including the interest amount of Rs.2,72,904/- stated to have been paid pursuant to the earlier proceedings.

¶63

After undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, dealing with each component of the claim raised by the applicant. In case any amount is found admissible towards interest or any other legitimate dues, the same shall be released to the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶64

Needless to say, if any part of the claim is found inadmissible, the competent authority shall record specific reasons for such conclusion and communicate the speaking order to the applicant.

¶65

The Original Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶66

(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (A) Member (J)

¶67

/arti/

¶68

ARTI 2026.09.16 16:39:46 +05'30'

¶69

ARTI

Ved Prakash Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Mcd)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ved Prakash Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Mcd)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shishir Kumar Sirvastava vs Union of India

Vijay Kumar vs Union of India

Dilip Kumar Pandey vs Union of India

Atul Mishra vs Secretary

Mohd Iqbal Shah vs Ut of Jk through Commissioner Secretary School Education Department

Gulam Mohi Ud Din Khan vs Jal Shakti Department

Habibullah Khan vs Home Department

Smt Archana Devi vs Union of India