Gurmeet Singh Matharoo vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

1 OA No.3984/2024

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi


OA No.3984/2024


Order reserved on: 23.10.2026
Order pronounced on: 02.11.2026


Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)


G. S. Matharoo S/o Piara Singh,
R/o W-21, Second Floor,
Greater Kailash, Part-I,
New Delhi-110048.
....Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan)

Versus


1. The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110006.

2. Assistant Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Central Establishment Department,
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110006

3. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block,
New Delhi-110001.
... Respondents

(By Advocate: Ms. Anupama Bansal for MCD and
Mr. Rajeev Kumar for MHA)


SUNITA 2026.11.02
14:52:16+05'30'
DUTT

2 OA No.3984/2024

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 2026.11.02
14:52:16+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:52:16+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:52:16+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:52:16+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:52:16+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:52:16+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:52:16+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:52:16+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:52:16+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:52:16+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:52:16+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:52:16+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:52:16+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:52:16+05'30'
DUTT