Gurmeet Singh Matharoo vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI on 2 November 2026

ORDER

By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

The instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief: “8.1 That to direct the respondents to release the Pension and Pensionary benefits including GPF to the applicant with rears forthwith with all consequential benefits.

8.2 That to further direct the respondent to release the interest on the arrears of pension and pensionary benefits including GPF amount at the GPF rate of interest from the date of retirement to the date of actual payment. Or/and Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant.

2. Factual Matrix

2.1 On qualifying the Assistants Grade Examination conducted by the UPSC in 1979, the applicant was appointed to the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in February 1981. He was promoted to the post of Section Officer in 1988 after clearing the Section Officers’ Grade Combined Limited Departmental Examination in 1987. In August 1999, he was further promoted to Grade I of the CSS (Under Secretary) in the pay scale of ₹10,000– 15,200. 2.2 In 04.09.2001, the MCD requested the MHA to forward the applicant's name, along with his vigilance clearance and ACRs, for appointment to the post of Additional Deputy

SUNITA DUTT

3 OA No.3984/2024

Commissioner/Joint Assessor & Collector (ADC/Jt. A&C) on deputation basis. After the MHA issued the necessary clearances certifying a clean record, the MCD – respondent No.1 sent the appointment letter dated 11.09.2001 of the applicant in the pay scale of ₹12,000–16,500 with a request to relieve him. After relieving, applicant joined the MCD on 24.09.2001.

2.3 Recognizing his outstanding performance, the then Commissioner of MCD appointed him as Secretary to the Commissioner w.e.f. 01.02.2002.

2.4 On 11.09.2003, the MCD issued a circular to fill the ex- cadre post of Secretary to the Commissioner on a permanent deputation/absorption basis. The applicant formally applied for permanent absorption.

2.5 The MHA issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) on 31.10.2003, permitting his permanent absorption in the MCD conditional upon his tendering a "Technical Resignation" from Central Government Service under Rule 26(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

2.6 Consequent to the NOC, the MCD permanently absorbed the applicant as Secretary to the Commissioner on 03.11.2003. On 13.02.2004, the President of India formally

SUNITA DUTT

4 OA No.3984/2024

accepted his technical resignation, severing his lien with the MHA effective from the forenoon of his absorption date.

2.7 On 17.01.2008, following a criminal case registered against him by the CBI, the applicant was placed under suspension. Later, applicant’s deputation to MCD from Government of India and his subsequent permanent absorption as Secretary to Commissioner, MCD was also terminated and revoked vide order dated 06.01.2010.

2.8 Aggrieved by his suspension and the revocation of his employment, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA Nos. 34/2010 and OA No. 221/2010. Through a combined order dated 18.11.2010, the Tribunal disposed of both the OAs and set aside the suspension review orders, deemed the applicant continuously in service with full entitlement to back wages, and left it open to the respondents to hold a regular inquiry only if validly justified.

2.9 The respondents challenged the aforesaid order of the Tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.7982/2010. The said W.P.C. has been dismissed vide order dated 22.09.2022 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Thus the order of the Tribunal dated 18.11.2010 attained finality.

SUNITA DUTT

5 OA No.3984/2024

2.10 Meanwhile, on 30.04.2016 the applicant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The applicant made representation on 03.03.2023 whereby he requested to release his pensionary benefits, arrears of pension w.e.f. 01.05.2016, leave encashment, gratuity, commutation of pension, GPF at the time of superannuation and other consequential benefits. The said representation when not responded to by the respondents applicant sent reminders dated 03.04.2023 and 18.05.2023 but of no avail. Hence the OA.

3. Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply, to which the applicant has filed their rejoinder.

4. Submissions by learned counsel for the applicant 4.1 Learned counsel for the applicant in his written submissions states that the present OA raises a substantial and meritorious claim concerning the arbitrary and continued withholding of the applicant's pension and other retiral benefits since his superannuation on 30.04.2016. It is further submitted that on the date of retirement, neither any departmental enquiry was pending against him nor had charges been framed against him in any criminal case, and the position remains unchanged even as on date. The only

SUNITA DUTT

6 OA No.3984/2024

subject matter of the earlier litigation was the legality of his permanent absorption in the MCD as well as suspension which had already been decided in his favour by this Tribunal vide judgment dated 18.11.2010 in O.A. Nos. 34/2010 and 221/2010, whereby the revocation of his absorption was set aside and he was declared deemed to be in service w.e.f. 07.12.2008 with entitlement to full wages. The said judgment attained finality upon dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 7982/2010 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2022. Significantly, since the date of superannuation, the applicant has not been paid even provisional pension, much less regular pension, gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension, GPF or other consequential retiral benefits. Thus, in the absence of any demonstrated statutory impediment or lawful justification for withholding such benefits, the applicant has a strong case on merits for release of his entire pensionary and retiral dues. He also has a substantial and independent claim for interest on the delayed payments, particularly when the delay of more than ten years is not attributable to him. The applicant accordingly places reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, (2013) 12 SCC 210 and S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana, (2008) 3 SCC 44, which recognize the protection afforded to pensionary benefits and the maintainability of a claim for interest on delayed retiral dues.

SUNITA DUTT

7 OA No.3984/2024

"The fact remains that proceedings were finally dropped and all retiral benefits were extended to the appellant. But it also cannot be denied that those benefits were given to the appellant after four years. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well-founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rules. If there are Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 2l of the Constitution, The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of bounty is, in our opinion, well-founded and needs no authority in support thereof."

4.2 In the case of State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court has held: "8. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and unblemished service. Conceptually it is so lucidly described in D.S. Nakara. Union of India by D.A. Desai, J. who spoke for the Bench, in his inimitable style, in the following words: (SCC pp. 319-20, paras 18-20) "

4.3 In the case of Ram Kishan v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 9767/2015, decided on 07.12.2015 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as follows: “11. Having regard to the submissions made and taking into consideration the fact that the order passed by the Tribunal dated 11.08.2015 has attained finality and the same has not been assailed by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of the delay in release of his pensionary dues. Since the

SUNITA DUTT

8 OA No.3984/2024

petitioner is not at fault, he would be entitled to interest. We may note that despite the order dated 11.08.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the retiral dues of the petitioner have not been released till date. The petitioner cannot be deprived of his retiral benefits which were to be released to him in the year 2009 or at least after the passing of the order by the Tribunal in August, 2015.

12. In the case of S. K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. : AIR 2008 SC 1077, it has been held as under :

“.............The fact remains that proceedings were finally dropped and all retiral benefits were extended to the appellant. But it also cannot be denied that those benefits were given to the appellant after four years. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well- founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rules. If there are Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of 'bounty' is, in our opinion, well-founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents.”

13. In the case of V. K. Sareen Vs. Union of India & Ors. : 187 (2012) Delhi Law Times 483, a Division Bench of this court while relying on various judgments granted 10% interest while holding that the petitioner was not responsible for the delay.

14. The Apex Court in the case of D. D. Tewari Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. : 2014 (9) SCALE 78, in para 4 held that :

“4. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2006 and the order of the learned single Judge after adverting to the relevant facts and the legal position has given a direction to the employer-respondent to pay the erroneously withheld pensionary benefits and the gratuity amount to the legal representatives of the deceased employee without awarding interest for which the appellant is legally entitled, therefore, this Court has to exercise its appellate jurisdiction as there is a miscarriage of justice in denying the interest to be paid or payable by the employer

SUNITA DUTT

9 OA No.3984/2024

from the date of the entitlement of the deceased employee till the date of payment as per the aforesaid legal principle laid down by this Court in the judgment referred to supra. We have to award interest at the rate of 9% per annum both on the amount of pension due and the gratuity amount which are to be paid by the respondent.”

15. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay interest @ 9 % to the petitioner on his retiral benefits.”

Dr. Ajit Kumar Goyal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Dr. Yogesh Kumar V. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, W.P.(C) Nos. 1114/2025 and 1160/2025, decided on 08.12.2025 where the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as follows: “3. Keeping in view the above, the Impugned Order, insofar as it directs payment of interest only from three months after the date of receipt of the certified copies of the order, is set aside. The interest shall be payable by the respondent to the petitioner(s) from the date on which the retiral benefits became due and payable to the petitioner(s) till the date on which they were actually paid. 4. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, we remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal to determine the same in accordance with the decision of the Full Bench of the learned Tribunal. 5. We are informed that although the Full Bench was constituted, it has still not decided the issue of the rate of interest. As the issue before the Full Bench is rather limited, we hope that the learned Tribunal, if it has not already done so, decide the issue within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

4.2 Learned counsel for the applicant further states that the respondents, particularly, respondent No.3 vide their counter- affidavit dated 09.04.2026 have put the burden of payment of retiral benefits entirely on MCD, as the applicant retired from the service of said respondent-MCD on 30.04.2016. He further states that the learned counsel for respondent

SUNITA DUTT

10 OA No.3984/2024

Nos.1&2 has also not denied the retiral dues of the applicant particularly referred to in their reply with respect to the pleadings in OA from paragraphs 4.19 to 4.20 and states that the respondents have admitted that they are prepared to grant the retiral benefits subject to receipt of concerned filed from respondent No.3.

5.

Submissions

by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3

5.1 Learned counsel for respondent No.3 states that the matter regarding payment of retiral dues lies with MCD- respondent Nos.1&2. The service record of the applicant has been transferred to respondent No.3 when the applicant was permanently absorbed in the office of respondent No.1. Accordingly, the service record of the applicant is not with respondent No.3.

6.

Submissions

by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1&2

6.1 Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1&2 states that respondent No.1 is prepared to grant retiral benefits to the applicant subject to the availability of the service record. She further states that the department has processed the case of the applicant for obtaining necessary details and record from the concerned department and his parent department, so that case could be processed before the Competent Authority for

SUNITA DUTT

11 OA No.3984/2024

necessary approval for payment according to his entitlement. The MCD requested the parent department of the applicant, i.e. MHA vide letter dated 27.10.2004 and 09.03.2005 for verification of the service rendered in MHA but the same has not been received so far. In absence of his original service book; the continuity of his previous service tenure as well as the leave records are yet to be finalized which is required for grant of pension and other retirement benefits. Further, the suspension period of the applicant is yet to be decided by Vigilance Department, MCD.

7.

Analysis

7.1 The primary responsibility for granting the retiral benefits lies with respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 vide their counter affidavit 21.05.2025 have admitted that they are prepared to grant the retiral benefits subject to service verification of the applicant for the period the applicant served with Ministry of Home Affairs and the availability of the service book which has been taken over by the CBI in respect of RC DAI-2008-A-0002 under Section of 120-B r/q 420/68 and 471 IPC r/w Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 as per provisions of Regulation 5 (2) of DMC Services (Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1959 vide office order dated 17.01.2008 under the orders of Commissioner, MCD.

SUNITA DUTT

12 OA No.3984/2024

However, nowhere it has been mentioned that the Service Book of the applicant is in the custody of CBI.

7.2 The short issue for consideration is the availability of the applicant’s service book for the purpose of determining and releasing his retiral benefits, which have remained pending since his retirement from the service of the MCD.

7.3 From the pleadings of the respondents, it is evident that there is no definite pleading by the respondents that applicant’s service book is still in the custody of the CBI. If the service book is still in the custody of CBI, let both MCD and MHA approach the CBI and request it to prepare a shadow file, if required or return the original service book to the MHA, provided the same is no longer required in connection with any pending proceedings or investigation. Upon receipt thereof, the MHA should forward the service book to the MCD for consideration of the applicant’s case for release of his retiral benefits.

7.4 Considering that the matter pertains to the applicant’s pensionary benefits, the MHA and MCD should take expeditious steps to approach the CBI. To facilitate the retrieval of the service book, an official of the MCD should approach personally the CBI along with appropriate communication for retrieval of the original/shadow service

SUNITA DUTT

13 OA No.3984/2024

book. Service Book if not required by the CBI or allow preparation of a shadow service book duly authenticated by competent authority of CBI. After retrieval of service book from CBI, as the case may be, let MCD send the said service book to respondent No.3. Let respondent No.3 verify the service book of the applicant for the period he was in service of respondent No.3.

7.5 After verification of the service by respondent No.3, the respondent No.1 shall carry out the detailed exercise regarding the payment of retiral dues of the applicant from the date of his superannuation. As the applicant has been re- instated in service in pursuance of the order dated 18.11.2010 passed in OA No.221/2010 and nothing has been brought against the applicant regarding any issue pertaining to the CBI case as mentioned in paragraph 4.14 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1&2, the applicant is entitled for all the retiral dues. 7.6 As regards the claim of the applicant for payment of interest for likely delay in payment of reitral dues of the applicant it is a fact that the respondent Nos.1&2 lost the case before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi finally decided the W.P.C. No.7982/2010 vide judgment dated 22.09.2022. The applicant superannuated on 30.04.2016. The respondents have not

SUNITA DUTT

14 OA No.3984/2024

brought out that anything was against the applicant as on the date of his superannuation. The subsequent delay in making payment of retiral dues is on account of non-availability of service record and its verification from respondent No.3. It has been pointed out that the service record might have been impounded by the CBI. 7.7 Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (supra), S.K.Dua (supra), Ram Kishan (supra) and Dr. Ajit Kumar Goyal (supra). This Tribunal find that the ratio of the aforesaid judgments is squarely applicable to the instant case and respondents are liable to pay interest for the period of delay in payment of various retirement dues to the applicant.

8.

Conclusion

8.1 In view of this, the present OA is allowed with the following directions:

(i) Let the respondent No.1 approach the CBI for getting original record of service book of the applicant. If it is still required by the CBI for any ongoing investigation, let the status report of the said investigation be prepared and be furnished to respondent No.1 within a period of two weeks from the date the respondent No.1 approaches the CBI in that

SUNITA DUTT

15 OA No.3984/2024

respect. In case the service book is still required by CBI, it shall allow respondent No.1 to prepare a shadow service book to be duly authenticated by competent authority of CBI.

(ii) On receipt of service book or shadow service book from the CBI, let respondent No.3 furnish the same to respondent No.3 and seek the verification of the service for the period the applicant was with respondent No.3 within 15 days. Respondent No.3 shall furnish such verification within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the request from respondent No.1.

(iii) After receipt of the service verification from respondent No.3 in the above manner, the respondent No.1 shall consider the payment of provisional/final retirement benefits, as the case may be, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such service verification from respondent No.3. iv) The respondents are directed to pay interest for the period of delay from the date these were due till the date these are actually paid to the applicant with simple interest at a rate applicable for GPF for the said period.

9. No order as to costs.

10. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul)

Member (A) ‘SD’

SUNITA DUTT