KISHORI LAL SHARMA vs BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

1 (OA No. 063/16/2019)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No.063/16/2019

Reserved on: 14.08.2026
Pronounced on: 24.09.2026

HON’BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)

Kishori Lal Sharma aged 63 years S/o late Sh. Sunder
Singh Sharma, R/o House No. 3882/12, Bikram Castle,
Nahan, Distt. Sirmaour (HP) 173001. Group C.

…Applicant
( BY ADVOCATE : Sh. Shailendra Sharma)

VERSUS
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Corporate Office, Bharat
th
Sanchar Bhawan, 4 Floor, Harish Chander Mathur
Lane, Janpath, New Delhi-110001.
Through its Chairman cum Managing Director.

2. The Chief General Manager, HP Telecom Circle, BSNL,
Shimla 171001.

3. The General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Himuda
Complex, Solan 173205.

4. Controller of Communication Accounts, Block No. 18-
A, SDA Complex, Kasumpati, Shimla 171001.

5. Sub Divisional Officer (Area) BSNL, Nahan Distt.
Sirmaour (HP) 173001.

…….…Respondents
( BY ADVOCATE : Sh. K.K. Thakur for respdts. No. 1 to 3 &
5
Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC along with
Ms. Jyotika Panesar for respdt. No. 4)
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:59:42+05'30'

2 (OA No. 063/16/2019)


O R D E R(Oral)

Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. This Original Application has been made under Section 19 of
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against the Order dated
04.06.2018 (Annexure A-3) passed by Respondent No. 3,
whereby the claim of the applicant for payment of interest on
delayed GPF, grant of two increments under the Non-Executive
Promotion Policy (NEPP) w.e.f. 2004 and 2008, and payment of
the employer‟s share of EPF contribution amounting to Rs.
4,836/- for July to October 2013, was declined by the
respondents. The applicant has also challenged the failure of
the respondents to re-fix his pay by granting the aforesaid two
increments and to pay interest on GPF up to the date of actual
disbursement, as interest was paid only up to 31.10.2013, i.e.
the date of retirement. The applicant has contended that the
NEPP increments were not granted on the ground that the
matter was sub-judice, despite the order of this Hon‟ble
Tribunal granting the benefit having been upheld by the
Hon‟ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh by dismissing the
respondents‟ writ petition vide judgment dated 08.10.2015
(Annexure A-9) . Accordingly, the applicant sought directions
for re-fixation of his pay by granting two additional increments
w.e.f. 2004 and 2008, re-calculation of all consequential retiral
benefits and release of the resultant arrears along with
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:59:42+05'30'

3 (OA No. 063/16/2019)

interest, besides payment of interest on delayed GPF and the
employer‟s EPF contribution of Rs. 4,836/-.
2. By filing this Original Application, the applicant has sought the
following relief(s):-
“i) The Order dated 4.6.2018 (Annexure A-3 ) passed by
respondent no. 3 whereby the claim of the applicant for
interest on late payment of GPF and two increments
under NEPP Scheme and EPF contribution of the employer
amounting to Rs. 4836/- has been declined by the
respondents on arbitrary grounds be quashed;

ii) That the respondents be directed to release the
employers EPF contribution of Rs. 4836/- for the month of
July to Oct. 2013 to the applicant alongwith interest;

iii) That the respondents be directed to pay interest of GPF
and EPF w.e.f. 1.11.2013 till the actual date of
disbursement as admittedly the interest of GPF has been
paid only upto 31.10.2013;

iv) That the respondents be directed to refix the pay of the
applicant by granting two additional increments on
account of Non Executive Promotion Policy (NEPP) w.e.f.
2004 and 2008 as the said increments were not given to
the applicant on the pretext that the matter regarding
grant of increments on account of Non Executive
Promotion Policy (NEPP) (is subjudice whereas the order
passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal regarding grant of benefit
of increments on account of Non Executive Promotion
Policy (NEPP) has been upheld by the Hon'ble High court
of Himachal Pradesh by dismissing the writ petition filed
by the respondents vide judgment dated 8.10.2015
(Annexure A 9)
v) That the respondents be directed to re-calculate the
retiral benefits of the applicant after re-fixation of pay by
granting two increments on account of Non Executive
Promotion Policy (NEPP) and release the arrears with
interest.

vi) That the respondents be directed to grant interest @18%
p.a. on all the arrears from the date it became due till the
actual date of payment”

NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:59:42+05'30'

4 (OA No. 063/16/2019)

3. The facts as encapsulated in the present Original Application are that
after retirement from the Army in the year 1987, the applicant was
appointed as a Daily Rated Mazdoor by Respondent No. 5 on
01.08.1996 in the Department of Telecommunications (now BSNL).
The Government of India, Department of Telecommunications, vide
order dated 07.11.1989, introduced the Casual Labourers (Grant of
Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme , which came into
force w.e.f. 01.10.1989, under which daily-rated mazdoors
completing three years of continuous service were to be treated at
par with Group „D‟ employees and were entitled to the corresponding
pay scale and allowances. The applicant was accordingly granted
Temporary Status w.e.f. 12.02.1999 vide order dated 12.03.1999.
4. That subsequently, Respondent No. 2, vide order dated 30.11.2000,
regularized the services of employees having temporary status as
regular Mazdoors in the pay scale of Rs. 2550–3200/-. However, the
applicant was denied the said benefit on account of his implication
and subsequent conviction in a criminal case in the year 2003. The
said conviction was ultimately set aside by the Hon‟ble High Court of
Himachal Pradesh vide judgment dated 15.09.2010, whereby the
applicant was acquitted. After his acquittal and joining back in
service, the applicant sought regularization from the date on which
his immediate junior had been regularized. As the respondents failed
to take appropriate action, the applicant filed OA No. 548/HP/2012,
which was allowed by this Hon‟ble Tribunal on 02.04.2013, directing
the respondents to reconsider and regularize the applicant‟s services
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:59:42+05'30'

5 (OA No. 063/16/2019)

from the date on which his immediate junior had been regularized,
i.e. 30.11.2000.
5. That pursuant to the order dated 02.04.2013, the applicant was
granted the benefit of regularization as regular Mazdoor w.e.f.
30.11.2000. Consequently, the applicant became entitled to
consequential benefits, including proper re-fixation of pay, salary
arrears from 30.11.2000 to 31.10.2013, and re-calculation/release
of retiral benefits on the basis of the correctly fixed last pay.
However, the respondents failed to correctly re-fix the applicant‟s
last pay and release the entire consequential monetary benefits.
Various amounts were released during 2014, including Rs.
2,33,287/- towards leave encashment on 02.01.2014, Rs.
1,55,667/- towards DCRG on 25.02.2014, Rs. 87,845/- towards
arrears on 08.03.2014, Rs. 29,357/- towards pay arrears on
08.05.2014, Rs. 2,059/- towards GIC on 17.05.2014, Rs. 1,04,665/-
on 18.06.2014 and Rs. 1,50,126/- on 21.06.2014. Since the
applicant‟s claim remained unresolved, he served a legal notice
dated 23.04.2014 upon Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
6. That as no effective action was taken, the applicant filed OA No.
063/00121/14, which was disposed of by this Hon‟ble Tribunal on
08.10.2014, directing the respondents to decide the applicant‟s legal
notice by passing a speaking order within the stipulated period. As
the respondents failed to comply, the applicant filed CP No.
063/00009/2015. During the contempt proceedings, the respondents
stated that the entire retiral benefits had been paid, and the CP was
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:59:42+05'30'

6 (OA No. 063/16/2019)

disposed of on 01.07.2015, with liberty to the applicant to revive the
same if any amount was found due. The applicant thereafter filed MA
No. 063/00075/2015 for revival. Significantly, in their reply to the
revival application, the respondents themselves admitted that due to
a computer error they had earlier stated that the entire payment had
been made, whereas after manual verification it was found that
further amount was due to the applicant. The said reply is annexed
as Annexure A-2 . Despite the aforesaid position, the respondents
passed a speaking order dated 30.12.2015 claiming that the entire
retiral benefits had been released. The revival application was
thereafter disposed of on 05.01.2016, granting liberty to the
applicant to challenge the said speaking order by filing a fresh OA.
7. That the applicant accordingly filed OA No. 100/2016, which was
disposed of by this Hon‟ble Tribunal on 03.04.2018, directing the
respondents to consider/pay interest on GPF @ 6% per annum from
the date of retirement till release, the claim regarding two
increments under NEPP, and the employer‟s contribution towards
EPF for the period July 2013 to October 2013. Pursuant thereto,
Respondent No. 3 passed a speaking order dated 04.06.2018,
whereby the claim for GPF interest was stated to fall within the
domain of DOT, the claim for two NEPP increments was rejected on
the ground that there was no provision for granting such increments
w.e.f. 2004 and 2008, and no effective decision was given regarding
the employer‟s EPF contribution for July 2013 to October 2013. The
said order dated 04.06.2018 is annexed as Annexure A-3 . Thus,
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:59:42+05'30'

7 (OA No. 063/16/2019)

despite the applicant having been granted regularization w.e.f.
30.11.2000, the consequential benefits flowing therefrom have not
been fully and correctly worked out and released.
8. Respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5 have contested the claim of the
original applicant by filing a written statement. It has been
submitted therein that the applicant has challenged the order dated
04.06.2018 ( Annexure A-3 ) whereby his claims regarding interest
on delayed payment of GPF, two increments under the Non-
Executive Promotion Policy (NEPP) and employer‟s EPF contribution
of Rs.4,836/- were rejected. The respondents state that, pursuant to
the Tribunal‟s directions dated 03.04.2018, the employer‟s EPF share
of Rs.4,836/- was paid vide letter dated 07.01.2016 and credited to
the applicant‟s account through NEFT on 10.02.2016. They further
state that GPF interest of Rs.13,930/- was paid on 22.03.2016, while
the February 2011 subscription of Rs.5,085/- was paid on
15.01.2016, and therefore no further relief is due.
9. Regarding the claim for two increments under NEPP, the respondents
contend that the applicant retired on 31.10.2013 and did not satisfy
the eligibility conditions. The NEPP policy, enclosed as Annexure R-
1 , provides under clauses 3.1 and 3.2 for time-bound IDA pay-scale
upgradations, including four upgradations generally after eight years
and, for employees recruited by DOT before 01.10.2000, the first
and second upgradations after four and seven years respectively.
The respondents contend that the applicant did not have the
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:59:42+05'30'

8 (OA No. 063/16/2019)

required qualifying service as on 01.10.2004 and that the requisite
ACR/APAR and vigilance-clearance conditions were also not fulfilled.
10. The respondents further rely upon the distinction between regular
DOT employees and Casual Labour/Temporary Status Mazdoors
(TSMs). They refer to DOT order dated 20.10.2006 (No. 27-2/2006-
SNG) and the earlier order dated 29.09.2000 (No. 269-94/98-STN-
II), stating that only specified TSMs who were regularized pursuant
to the earlier scheme could receive Presidential Orders for limited
pensionary benefits. According to the respondents, casual
labour/TSM service did not constitute regular service, and
subsequent regular appointment in BSNL became effective only from
the actual date of appointment/joining. Hence, such prior
casual/TSM service could not automatically be counted for NEPP
benefits.
11. On the applicant‟s reliance upon Sanjay Kumar & Ors. v. UOI & Ors.,
the respondents state that the CAT order dated 16.01.2013 in OA
No. 279/HP/2012 was implemented only in respect of the applicants
therein after dismissal of BSNL‟s SLP by the Supreme Court and was
not universally applicable. Reliance is placed on K.I. Shepherd v.
UOI, (1987) 4 SCC 431 , to contend that extension of a judgment
to similarly situated persons depends upon circumstances such as
representative proceedings, declaratory relief, quashing of a rule of
general application, or an express direction for universal
implementation. The respondents therefore maintain that the NEPP
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:59:42+05'30'

9 (OA No. 063/16/2019)

provisions were not required to be amended for all similarly placed
employees.
12. Lastly, the respondents contend that the O.A. is barred by delay and
laches. Reliance is placed upon Union of India v. P.S. Pansora,
(2001) 3 BOMLR 672 , Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare
v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan, AIR 1959 SC 798 ,
State of Uttaranchal v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, 2013
(6) SLR 629 , C. Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining, (2008)
10 SCC 115 , and Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC
59 . These decisions are cited for the proposition that repeated
representations do not revive a stale claim or create a fresh cause of
action, and that limitation/delay is to be examined with reference to
the original cause of action. On these grounds, the respondents seek
dismissal of the O.A.
13. A short reply has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4
wherein it has been submitted that amongst other Original
Applications, the Original Applicant preferred OA No. 63/100/2016
titled “Kishori Lal Sharma vs. BSNL & Ors.”, which was disposed of
by this Hon‟ble Tribunal vide Final Order dated 3rd April, 2018,
directing the respondents to pay interest @ 6% on the GPF amount
from the date it became due till its release and to pass a reasoned
and speaking order on the claim for two increments under NEPP,
besides releasing the employer‟s EPF contribution for July, 2013 to
October, 2013, if due. In compliance with the direction regarding
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:59:42+05'30'

10 (OA No. 063/16/2019)

interest, Respondent No. 4 paid Rs. 7,035/- for the period from 1st
November, 2013 to 31st July, 2015 vide Demand Draft No.
79568077 dated 31st August, 2018, and the Demand Draft, sanction
letter, Registered Post receipt and relevant dispatch diary are
annexed as Annexures R-4/1 to R-4/4 respectively. Thus,
Respondent No. 4 has duly complied with the directions of this
Hon‟ble Tribunal. As regards the direction concerning two increments
under NEPP, the same falls within the domain of BSNL, which has
already complied by passing a reasoned and speaking order dated
4th June, 2018, annexed as Annexure A-3 by the applicant himself.
Since the cause of action in the present OA pertains to Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3, the preliminary submissions may kindly be read as part
of the reply to Paras 1 to 12. In view thereof, the present OA is
devoid of merit and may kindly be dismissed with costs, in the
interest of justice.
14. The applicant filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents.
While reiterating the facts as have been submitted by the applicant
in the Original Application, the applicant submitted that the
tespondents have themselves admitted that GPF interest was
calculated only up to 31.10.2013, as evident from Annexure A-5
dated 22.03.2016. The plea that the Applicant is not entitled to the
benefits under the Non-Executive Promotion Policy (NEPP) is
incorrect, as he was appointed on 01.08.1996, granted temporary
status w.e.f. 12.02.1999 and regularized vide order dated
30.11.2000 pursuant to the order of this Hon‟ble Tribunal, and
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:59:42+05'30'

11 (OA No. 063/16/2019)

therefore fulfilled the requisite conditions for the applicable pay
upgradations. The benefits were earlier withheld on the ground that
the matter was sub judice, as evident from letter dated 20.11.2012
(Annexure A-8), and the order granting the NEPP benefit was
subsequently upheld by the Hon‟ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh
vide judgment dated 08.10.2015 (Annexure A-9). Accordingly, the
applicant was entitled to the two additional increments,
consequential re-fixation of his last pay and recalculation of retiral
benefits. The subsequent plea regarding non-availability of ACRs
cannot defeat an otherwise admissible benefit. The remaining
averments, being mere reproduction of relevant clauses, require no
further clarification.
15. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have
carefully gone through the pleadings on record.
16. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents
had not paid the entire arrears of retiral benefits by the date of
passing the speaking order dated 30.12.2015, as further amounts
towards GPF were sanctioned even thereafter. It was further
submitted that despite the admitted delay in payment of GPF,
interest was calculated only up to the date of retirement, i.e.
31.10.2013, and the employer‟s EPF contribution of Rs. 4,836/- was
also not paid to the applicant.
17. Learned counsel further contended that the applicant was entitled to
two additional increments under the Non-Executive Promotion Policy
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:59:42+05'30'

12 (OA No. 063/16/2019)

(NEPP), which had initially been withheld on the ground that the
matter was sub judice; however, the Tribunal‟s order granting the
said benefit was subsequently upheld by the Hon‟ble High Court vide
judgment dated 08.10.2015. Therefore, the applicant‟s last pay was
required to be re-fixed and his retiral benefits correspondingly
recalculated.
18. It was also submitted that the applicant had been repeatedly
compelled to approach the Tribunal for securing his lawful dues,
despite the respondents having earlier claimed that the entire
arrears had been paid. The subsequent sanction of further amounts,
according to learned counsel, demonstrated that the respondents
had not fully complied with their obligations and had unnecessarily
compelled the applicant to pursue repeated litigation. The impugned
action was therefore contended to be arbitrary and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
19. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicant did
not fulfill the prescribed condition of four years‟ qualifying service as
on 01.10.2004 and, therefore, was not eligible for the
benefit/increment under the Non-Executive Promotion Policy (NEPP),
particularly as his regularization was effected pursuant to the
directions of the Court.
20. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the
applicant was earlier working as a Temporary Status Mazdoor and no
ACRs/APARs had been maintained by the Controlling Officer. Since
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:59:42+05'30'

13 (OA No. 063/16/2019)

he was not regular during the relevant period, the requisite
ACRs/APARs and vigilance clearance required for consideration by
the DPC/Screening Committee were not available and, consequently,
his case could not be considered under the NEPP.
21. Learned counsel contends that the claim raised by the applicant was
barred by limitation and, in any event, the benefits under the NEPP
had already been granted pursuant to the directions of the Hon‟ble
Tribunal and there was no occasion or necessity to re-fix his retiral
benefits.
22. We have considered the rival submissions and have carefully gone
through the pleadings and documents placed on record. The material
facts are largely undisputed. The applicant was initially engaged as a
Daily Rated Mazdoor on 01.08.1996, was granted Temporary Status
w.e.f. 12.02.1999 and, pursuant to the order passed by this Tribunal
in OA No. 548/HP/2012 dated 02.04.2013, was regularized with
retrospective effect from 30.11.2000. The applicant thereafter
retired from service on 31.10.2013.
23. Once the applicant's regularization was directed with effect from
30.11.2000, the respondents were under an obligation to extend to
him the consequential benefits flowing from such regularization in
accordance with the applicable service rules and policies. The
respondents cannot simultaneously recognize the applicant as having
been regularly appointed with effect from 30.11.2000 and deny the
consequential service benefits by treating his service during the
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:59:42+05'30'

14 (OA No. 063/16/2019)

relevant period as though the order of retrospective regularization
had no effect.
24. The principal dispute concerns the applicant's entitlement to the
benefits under the Non-Executive Promotion Policy. The respondents
have sought to deny the benefit principally on the ground that the
applicant did not possess the requisite qualifying service and that
ACRs/APARs and vigilance clearance were not available. We find that
these objections, in the facts of the present case, do not constitute
sufficient justification for denying the Applicant the benefit without
properly giving effect to his retrospective regularization.
25. The record further shows that the applicant's claim for NEPP benefits
had earlier been withheld on the ground that the matter was sub
judice. The judicial proceedings concerning similarly situated
employees thereafter culminated in the judgment dated 08.10.2015
of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh upholding the benefit
granted by the Tribunal. The applicant was, therefore, entitled to
have his claim examined in the light of the said judicial
determination and his own service particulars. The respondents
could not reject the claim merely by reiterating that the matter was
not covered by the NEPP, without undertaking the necessary
exercise of determining the Applicant's entitlement in the light of the
retrospective regularization and the applicable judicial
pronouncements.
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:59:42+05'30'

15 (OA No. 063/16/2019)

26. The objection regarding non-availability of ACRs/APARs also cannot,
by itself, defeat the applicant's substantive entitlement. The absence
of relevant records maintained by the employer cannot be permitted
to operate to the prejudice of an employee where the benefit is
otherwise admissible under the governing policy. If the respondents
required any assessment regarding service record, vigilance status
or suitability, the same was required to be undertaken on the basis
of the material lawfully available on record and in accordance with
the applicable policy.
27. We accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of
the two NEPP upgradations/increments falling due in the years 2004
and 2008, subject to the precise manner of fixation prescribed under
the applicable NEPP provisions. The respondents shall consequently
re-fix the Applicant's pay by granting the aforesaid two benefits from
their respective due dates.
28. Once the applicant's pay is re-fixed by taking into account the two
NEPP benefits, his retiral benefits necessarily require corresponding
revision. The applicant shall therefore be entitled to re-calculation of
pensionary/retiral benefits, including all benefits which are required
to be determined on the basis of the revised pay, and payment of
the consequential arrears.
29. The objection of limitation and delay is also not sufficient to defeat
the applicant's claim. The applicant had been continuously pursuing
his service and retiral claims before the department and this
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:59:42+05'30'

16 (OA No. 063/16/2019)

Tribunal. The record itself demonstrates that the respondents had
earlier stated that the entire retiral benefits had been released, but
subsequently admitted, upon manual verification, that further
amounts were payable. The applicant thereafter pursued the matter
through the appropriate proceedings. In these circumstances, the
present claim cannot be treated as a stale claim raised after an
unexplained period of inaction.
30. With regard to GPF, it is undisputed that the applicant retired on
31.10.2013 and that the GPF amount was released subsequently.
This Tribunal, vide order dated 03.04.2018, had directed payment of
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the amount
became due till its release. Consequently, the applicant is entitled to
interest for the entire period during which the GPF amount remained
unpaid, after giving credit for the interest already released by the
respondents.
31. The payment of Rs.7,035/- stated to have been made by
Respondent No.4 towards GPF interest shall be duly adjusted against
the total amount payable. The respondents shall calculate the
balance interest at the rate directed by this Tribunal from the date
the GPF amount became due till the actual date of release and shall
pay the balance amount, if any, to the Applicant.
32. As regards the employer's EPF contribution of Rs.4,836/- for the
period July 2013 to October 2013, the respondents have admitted
that the amount was ultimately credited to the applicant on
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:59:42+05'30'

17 (OA No. 063/16/2019)

10.02.2016. The principal amount shall therefore be treated as paid.
However, the applicant shall also be entitled to such interest on the
delayed employer's contribution as is admissible under the applicable
statutory provisions/rules for the period during which the amount
remained unpaid.
33. We also take note of the fact that the applicant, a retired employee,
was required to approach this Tribunal repeatedly for securing
benefits arising out of his service and retirement. The record further
demonstrates that the respondents had initially represented that the
entire dues had been paid, which position was subsequently found to
be incorrect upon verification. The Applicant ought not to be
deprived of his legitimate service and retiral dues on account of such
administrative lapses.
34. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the impugned order
dated 04.06.2018 (Annexure A-3) suffers from failure to properly
consider the applicant's entitlement to the consequential benefits
arising from his retrospective regularization and the applicable NEPP
provisions. The said order is accordingly quashed and set aside.
35. Consequently, the Original Application is allowed . The respondents
are directed to:
(i) grant the applicant the two NEPP upgradations/increments falling
due in 2004 and 2008 in accordance with the applicable NEPP
provisions and re-fix his pay accordingly;
(ii) re-calculate all consequential retiral/pensionary benefits on the basis
of the revised pay and release the resultant arrears;
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:59:42+05'30'

18 (OA No. 063/16/2019)

(iii) calculate and pay GPF interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date the GPF amount became due till the actual date of release, after
adjusting the amount of interest already paid;
(iv) treat the employer's EPF contribution of Rs.4,836/- as paid, subject
to verification, and release any interest legally admissible on account
of delayed deposit/payment;

36. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and
the consequential monetary benefits shall be released to the
applicant within a further period of one month.
37. In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly having
regard to the applicant's prolonged pursuit of his legitimate service
and retiral dues, there shall be no order as to costs .


(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)

ND*
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:59:42+05'30'