RAJENDRA SINGH vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI on 28 October 2026

1. COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI, 15th Floor, Dr.SPM Civic Center New Delhi- 110002.

2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI (SH.S.) ZONE,419 UDYOG SADAN PATAPRGANJ INDUSTRIAL AREA, PATPARGANJ,PS—ANAND VIHAR, DELHI-110092. ... Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Akshit Gupta)

DEEKSHA DHINGRA

O R D E R (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

1. In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a)-The respondents should be directed to issue an order to provide the money with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of passing of the Arrears Bill with immediate effect.

(b) -Direct the respondents to produce all the records of the matter along with their reply for perusal by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

(c) -Allow the cost of this application to the applicant.

(d) -Pass. such other orders or relief as_deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant retired from the post of Principal, Delhi Nagar Nigam School, Kalyanpuri, Block-05, Delhi, in 2013 and was allotted PPO No. 18040. His MACP-III arrears of ₹91,289/- were passed on 20.08.2014, and further arrears of ₹54,180/- for the period from July 2013 to September 2014 were passed on 30.04.2015. However, despite repeated applications and representations to Respondent No. 2, the sanctioned arrears remain unpaid. Consequently, the applicant issued a legal notice dated 11.11.2024, seeking

DEEKSHA DHINGRA

release of the outstanding arrears. (Annexures A-01 to A- 04). The limited prayer made by the applicant in the O.A. is with regard to payment on interest on the delayed payment of MACP arrears.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents by drawing reference to the counter reply submits that the O.A. is barred by limitation by limitation in terms of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in that regard. He submits that the 3rd MACP arrear and other arrear amounting to Rs. 91,289/- and Rs. 54,180/- respectively which the applicant is claiming stood accrued to him in the Financial Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. He argues that after an inordinate delay of 10 & 09 years, only on 25.02.2025 the applicant preferred the instant application seeking the release of said amounts without an accompanying application seeking condonation of delay affording cogent reasons as to what precluded the applicant from approaching this Hon'ble Tribunal within the limitation period of one year as provided in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. He further mentions that the applicant stood superannuated from the post of Principal in the year 2013 (30.06.2013) itself and that even

DEEKSHA DHINGRA

from the said date there is an inordinate and an unexplained delay of almost 12 years. He submitted that it is settled law that where the applicant allows the issue/grievance to become stale then any belated challenge/action to the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches or limitation. He further submits that it is also settled that cases involving inordinate delay warrant strict approach and granting any relief to the applicant at this stage would result in jettisoning the substantial law of limitation and would amount to assisting the indolent and lackadaisical attitude of the applicant and therefore, the said OA deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance I have also gone through the pleadings available on record.

5. The Tribunal is of the considered view that the act of the respondents who is a model employer has made delayed payments due to paucity of funds for the amounts which were due in the years 2014-15 and 2015-16. It has been vehemently argued by the respondents that there has been inordinate delay in filing of the present application. It is also seen that the respondents have paid the due amount on 05.10.2026 and 14.05.2026 demonstrating that the

DEEKSHA DHINGRA

respondents have paid the due amount after a substantial delay of more than 10 years. It is a well settled law that financial constraints cannot be a ground for delaying due payments of employees as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 2008 AIR SCW 689. Further, the aspect of payment of delayed arrears and interest thereon is also a well settled law in a catena of cases by various constitutional courts.

6. There is no doubt that the MACP scheme speaks about the payment of interest on the delayed payment of MACP-III arrears, however, keeping in view the fact that the substantial payments were made in the year 2026 only, no possible explanation is coming forth except for financial constraints by the respondents which cannot run contrary to the contentions recorded above about limitation.

7. In view of the full Bench judgment of the Tribunal, the law on the aspect of delayed payments of retiral dues has been indicated in the case of Rajbir Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. in O.A. No. 2821/2023 dated 30.10.2025. Though the said order has been challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, however, there is no stay operating.

DEEKSHA DHINGRA

8. In view of the above, the applicant is entitled to interest on delayed payments in view of the Full Bench judgment and we order accordingly.

9. The respondents are directed to pay interest on the delayed payment of MACP arrears to the applicant from the date it became due till it is actually paid at the rates applicable on GPF deposits within a period of two months from the dated of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

10. The O.A. stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Manish Garg) Member (J)

/dd /

DEEKSHA DHINGRA