Dr Veer Singh vs Union Of India And Ors

Court
Delhi High Court

$~66
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010601692024
+ W.P.(C) 12739/2024, CM APPL. 53092/2024
DR VEER SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shanker Raju, Senior Adv.
with Mr. Nilansh Gaur and Ms. Prerna Deep
Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 20.08.2026

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The petitioner was the applicant before the Central
1
Administrative Tribunal in OA 3789/2022, whereby he sought
interest on delayed payment of his retiral dues. The Tribunal has, by
order dated 14 May 2024, granted interest @ 7.5% from the date of
the first representation made by the petitioner till actual payment. The
petitioner is before us, assailing that the decision of the Tribunal to the
extent that it grants interest only from the date of his first
representation. The submission of Mr. Nilansh Gaur, learned Counsel
for the petitioner is that the petitioner would be entitled to interest
from the date of his superannuation.

1
“The Tribunal”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.09.2026
13:21:32
WP(C) 12739/2024 Page 1 of 6

2. We have heard Mr. Nilansh Gaur, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the
respondents.

3. The defence of Mr. Singh is that major penalty proceedings
were pending against the petitioner consequent to a charge sheet
issued to him on 28 June 2012, two days prior to his superannuation
on 30 June 2012. The charge sheet came to be quashed by the
Tribunal by judgment dated 3 January 2019 in OA 339/2015.
Following the judgment of the Tribunal, the respondents also closed
the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by order dated 19
December 2019. The order dated 3 January 2019, of the Tribunal, was
never challenged.

4. In these circumstances, Mr. Singh’s contention is that the
withholding of the petitioner’s retiral benefits, in the wake of the
disciplinary proceedings which were pending against him on the date
of his retirement, was justified and that, therefore, the Tribunal has
rightly granted interest to the petitioner only with effect from 21 May
2019, when he made his first representation. No case for grant of
interest from the date of superannuation of the petitioner, Mr. Singh
would submit, exists.


5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and considered
the matter in the light of the extant law, we are unable to accept the
submission of Mr. Singh and are of the view that the petitioner is


Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.09.2026
13:21:32
Signature Not Verified
WP(C) 12739/2024 Page 2 of 6

rightly entitled to interest on his retiral benefits from the date of his
superannuation.

6. It is important to note the ground on which the charge sheet
issued to the petitioner was quashed by the Tribunal. As was noted by
the Tribunal in its order dated 3 January 2019 in OA 339/2015,
identical charges were levelled against the petitioner and one Dr.
Sandeep Miglani, both of whom were members of a Technical
2
Evaluation Committee of the Government of National Capital
Territory of Delhi. The Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, by order dated
28 February 2013, did not even deem the issue worthy of an inquiry
and directed closure of the charges against Dr. Sandeep Miglani. The
Tribunal, in its order dated 3 January 2019, held that the petitioner
would be entitled to the same treatment as Dr. Sandeep Miglani, as the
charges against both were identical. It is in these circumstances that
the Tribunal quashed the charge sheet issued to the petitioner.

7. As we have already noted, the petitioner accepted the decision
of the Tribunal.

8. It cannot, therefore, be gainsaid that the very initiation of
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was misconceived. In
that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the respondent
cannot seek to urge the pendency of the said proceedings as a ground
to deny interest to the petitioner on his retiral benefits from the date of
his superannuation.

2
“TEC”, hereinafter

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.09.2026
13:21:32
WP(C) 12739/2024 Page 3 of 6

9. We should not be understood, in so holding, as attributing any
mala fides to the respondent. The respondent may have withheld, bona
fide, the retiral benefits as a charge sheet was pending against the
petitioner. The decision dated 3 January 2019, in the backdrop of the
order dated 28 February 2013 passed by the Hon’ble Lieutenant
Governor in the case of Dr. Miglani, however, indicates that the
disciplinary proceedings were misconceived ab initio . The pendency
of such misconceived proceedings cannot, to our mind, be a legitimate
ground to deny interest to the petitioner on his retiral benefits from the
date of his superannuation.

10. Had the said proceedings not been initiated, the petitioner
would have drawn retiral benefits from the date of his superannuation.
The pendency of such proceedings cannot, therefore, be cited as a
ground to justify denial of payment, to the petitioner, of his retiral
benefits from the date of his superannuation.

11. Interest is not necessarily punitive in all cases. Interest may be
penal or restitutive. The purpose of interest is not punishment –
though in certain cases, it may be penal. The fundamental purpose of
granting interest is to restore the person, who was deprived of monies
to which she/he was entitled, for any period of time, to the position n
which she, or he, would have been, had such deprivation not occurred.
The absence of mala fides in the decision of the respondent to
withhold the petitioner’s retiral benefits is not, therefore,
determinative of the petitioner’s entitlement to interest thereon from
the date of his superannuation. The entitlement of the petitioner flows
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.09.2026
13:21:32
WP(C) 12739/2024 Page 4 of 6

from the fact that, from the date of his superannuation till the date
when his retiral benefits, were paid to him, he was deprived of the said
retiral benefits which, had they been invested by the petitioner, would
have earned him interest. Equally, the respondent was the beneficiary
of the said amount which, otherwise, would have had to be paid to the
petitioner on his superannuation. It is to undo this imbalance that
interest is directed to be paid.

12. The Supreme Court clearly explained this position thus, in Alok
3
Shanker Pandey v. Union of India :

“ 9. It may be mentioned that there is misconception about
interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the
normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a
certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to him
today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount.
Had A paid that amount to B 10 years ago, B would have invested
that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of
that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it
for this period. Hence, equity demands that A should not only pay
back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B .”


13. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the petitioner would be
entitled to interest, not from the date of his first representation, but
from the date of his superannuation.

14. The impugned order, to the extent it grants interest to the
petitioner on his retiral benefits only from the date of his first
representation, is therefore quashed and set aside. The petitioner is
held to be entitled to interest on his retiral benefits, at the rate fixed by
the Tribunal, from the date of his superannuation.

3
(2007) 3 SCC 545
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.09.2026
13:21:32
WP(C) 12739/2024 Page 5 of 6

15. Let the balance amount, if any, be paid to the petitioner within
eight weeks from today.

16. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.


C. HARI SHANKAR, J

VINOD KUMAR, J
AUGUST 20, 2026 / yg/aky


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.09.2026
13:21:32
WP(C) 12739/2024 Page 6 of 6