AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"8(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order declaring to the effect the whole action of the respondents not releasing the Gratuity amount of the applicant is totally illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to release gratuity amount with interest @ 12% from the date of retirement till the date of payment.
(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to grant the interest on delayed payment of all the retirement benefits including GPF from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment.
(iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation."
This matter was heard at some length on 17.03.2025 and the following order was passed :-
“The instant O.A. has been filed by the applicant, who retired as a Driver from MCD on 31.05.2022. He knocked the doors of the Tribunal seeking retirement benefits as per the chart below, which was paid to him but in a delayed manner:-
As per the above chart, all payments were made but with delay, except Gratuity which had not been paid till the filing of the present O.A.
Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to para 6 of their counter reply, which is as follows:-
"6. Payment of 50% of DCRG amounting Rs. 6,47,823/-has been made to the applicant on 12/09/2024 and the remaining 50% of DCRG amounting Rs. 6,47,823/- has been done on 06/01/2025."
Now, with this, all the retirement benefits stand paid to the applicant but with delay.
On the issue of grant of interest on delayed payment as has been agitated by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to para 7 of their counter affidavit, which reads as under:-
"7. The Respondents submit that grant of interest as sought by the Petitioner will result in grave prejudice to the Respondents.
The Respondents/MCD have been facing acute financial shortage due to which the payment of salaries and dues to its employees are being delayed. The issue of financial constraints stems from various factors, including delays in receipt of grants from the Delhi Government. The Respondents are trying their best to remedy this larger issue by following up on grants, plugging leakages, reducing wasteful expenditure and taking steps to ensure timely payment of its dues."
In light of the above, learned counsel for the respondents pleaded that since all the retiral dues have been paid to the applicant, hence, the applicant may be satisfied, and the interest on the deleted payment may be waived on account of the precarious financials of the MCD.
This has been opposed by the learned counsel for the applicant stating that the interest on delayed payments is his right as per the settled principle of law and should be paid for the period from when the benefits were due to the applicant till the date they were actually paid at the GPF rate of 7.1%. Learned counsel for the applicant also handed over across the Bar the decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 361/2024 dated 18.10.2024.
Learned counsel for the respondents has sought sometime to go through the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant and then come physically to make her arguments.
List on 26.03.2025 as part-heard.”
Today, heard the counsel of both the parties again. The counsel for the respondents reiterated the precarious financial health of MCD and pleaded that interest on delayed payment may be waived. However, this was opposed by the counsel for the applicant who stated that the applicant would be satisfied if interest is paid on delayed payments if not at the extant GPF rate of 7.1% but at a lower rate of 6% as decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh and Another vs. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari (2021) 11 SCC 543.
It is a settled principle in administrative law and service jurisprudence as decided in catena of Supreme Court judgments that interest is not a bounty but a valuable right acquired and property under Article 300 A of the Constitution. Any delay in settlement and disbursement thereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of interest.
In the light of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the respondents consider to pay an interest @ 6% per annum on delayed payment to the applicant from the date they were due till the date they were actually paid as per the ratio given in the Apex Court Judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh and another vs. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari (2021) (supra). I, therefore, order accordingly. This exercise should be completed by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. This OA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.