SUNIL KUMAR UPPAL vs THE COMMISSIONER, MCD

Judgment text excerpt

$~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16947/2024 SUNIL KUMAR UPPAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv. versus THE COMMISSIONER, MCD .....Respondent Through: Ms. Meenakshi Midha and Ms. Samiksha Gupta, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 12.02.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the Central Administrative Tribunal1, in the impugned order dated 21 August 2024, while directing payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner, has not granted any interest thereon on the ground that MCD is facing financial stringencies. 2. We have already held, in MCD v Bijender Singh2, that financial stringency cannot constitute a basis for denying interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits. 1 “the Tribunal” hereinafter 2 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7716 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 16947/2024 Page 1 of 3 Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Date:15.02.2025 11:36:15 3. The MCD has filed a reply to this petition in which they have not disputed their liability to pay the interest but prayed that the interest should be directed to be paid at GPF rate. 4. Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 5. On the aspect of rate at which interest should be paid on retiral benefits, we have already noted in our order dated 4 February 2025 in WP (C) 401/20253 that there is lack of consistency in the orders passed by the Tribunal. We have, therefore, directed the said cases to be placed before the Hon’ble Chairman of the Tribunal in order to constitute a Bench which could attempt at achieving consistency in that regard. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, insofar as it denies payment of interest to