Union of India challenged a CAT order directing interest on delayed release of the respondent's post-retirement benefits. The High Court found no ground for Article 226 interference, noted inordinate delay in filing the petition, dismissed it with costs of Rs. 25,000 to the respondent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~64
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 01.09.2025
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC, Ms. Ira Singh, and Mr. Aryan Dhaka, Advs.
versus RAM AVTAR YADAV .....Respondent Through: Respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 54977/2025 (Exemption)
“8. In the light of the above, the instant OA has merit and deserves to be allowed. The order dated 09.03.2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to calculate the interest at the current GPF rate
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAMBHU W.P.(C) 13405/2025 SHARAN CHAUD HAR Y
Page 1 of 3
for the delayed period against each disbursement - CGIS, Commutation amount, Leave Encashment, Gratuity amount, GPF amount and pension from 01.09.2016 till the date each disbursement was made as shown in the table below :-
| SI. No. |
Benefits | Amount | Paid on |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | CGIS | Rs.59,284/- | 30.01.2017 |
| 2. | Commutation amount |
Rs.12,60,565/- | 30.01.2017 |
| 3. | Leave encashment | Rs. 6,53,820/- | 02.02.2017 |
| 4. | Gratuity amount | Rs. .10,14,693/- | 10.02.2017 |
| 5. | GPF | Rs. .6,86,398/- | 16.09.2016 |
| 6. | Pension | Accumulated 22.03.2017 pension from September 2016 to February 2017 |
22.03.2017 |
The above exercise should be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAMBHU W.P.(C) 13405/2025 SHARAN CHAUD HAR Y
Page 2 of 3
superannuation had taken steps to ensure that the amount is released to him expeditiously. It was only on account of the petitioners that the record was not traceable due to which the delay had occurred. We do not find this to be a fit case for interfering with the Impugned Order in the exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MADHU JAIN, J
SEPTEMBER 1, 2025/ ys /k/ik
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHAMBHU W.P.(C) 13405/2025 SHARAN CHAUD HAR Y
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Was the Tribunal justified in directing payment of interest on delayed retirement benefits including GPF, gratuity, commutation, leave encashment, CGIS and pension?
Did the writ petition warrant interference under Article 226 despite delay in filing?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India and Others
Ram Avtar Yadav
Navin Chawla
Madhu Jain
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
