The Delhi High Court allowed writ petitions challenging Central Administrative Tribunal orders on delayed pension payment interest. The court modified the Tribunal's award to accrue interest from the date of retirement instead of from the order date.
Interest on retiral dues at 7.5% reckoned from the date of superannuation.
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.
$~32 to 36
DR. RAVINDER KUMAR MEHRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Bhadoria, Mr. Umesh Singh and Ms Karishma, Advs.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shivangi Kumar, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Arya, Mr. Ismat Chughtai, Advs.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Akhil Mittal, SC for MCD
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Akhil Mittal, SC for MCD
DR. VINOD GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Bhadoria, Mr. Umesh Singh and Ms Karishma, Advs.
Signature Not Ver ified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 17330/2024 & other connected matters KUMAR Signing Da te:1 2.03.2025 19:43:29
Page 1 of 3
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shivangi Kumar, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Arya, Mr. Ismat Chughtai, Advs.
DR. DINESH KUMAR GARG .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Bhadoria, Mr. Umesh Singh and Ms Karishma, Advs.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shivangi Kumar, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Arya, Mr. Ismat Chughtai, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
%
ORDER (ORAL) 11.03.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. These writ petitions assail identical orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 by which, while directing grant of payment of delayed retiral benefits to the concerned petitioners, the Tribunal has awarded interest only from the expiry of three months from the passing of the order, @ 7.5 % from expiry of three months till the expiry of six months and @ 12% thereafter till the date of payment.
1 “the Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Ver ified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 17330/2024 & other connected matters KUMAR Signing Da te:1 2.03.2025 19:43:29
Page 2 of 3
2. Aggrieved thereby and contending that the petitioners would be entitled to interest from the date of their superannuation, these writ petitions have been filed.
3. We have had occasion to decide an identical matter in WP(C) 15561/20242 .
4. We have held, in the said decision, following our earlier judgment in MCD v Bijender Singh3 , that a retired employee who has not been disbursed retiral benefits would be entitled to interest from the date of retirement.
5. As such, we modify the order passed by the Tribunal by holding that the interest at the rate of 7.5% would be reckoned from the date of the petitioners’ superannuation, and not from the expiry of three months from the order of the Tribunal, till the date when the principal amount of the retiral dues was/is paid. We clarify that the direction for increase in the rate of interest to 12% p.a., in the event the amount is not/has not been paid before the expiry of six months from the date of the judgement of the Tribunal, stands as it is.
6. The writ petitions stand allowed accordingly.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
MARCH 11, 2025/ dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
2 Dr Priya Vrata v MCD
3 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7716 Signature Not Ver ified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 17330/2024 & other connected matters KUMAR Signing Da te:1 2.03.2025 19:43:29
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a retired employee entitled to delayed retiral benefits is eligible for interest from the date of retirement or from the date of the Tribunal order.
Whether the Tribunal's award of interest commencing only after three months from the order requires modification.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr Priya Vrata v MCDReferred¶35
WP(C) 15561/2024
MCD v Bijender SinghFollowed¶36
MCD v Bijender Singh
Dr. Ravinder Kumar Mehra
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Dr. Gyanendra Kumar Chaudhary
Dr. Surendra Kumar Gupta
Dr. Vinod Gupta
Dr. Dinesh Kumar Garg
C. Hari Shankar
Ajay Digpaul
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
