Indian Agricultural Research Institute vs Dr S K Kundalia

Court
Delhi High Court

$~76 & 79
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010501982026
+ W.P.(C) 15402/2026 & CM APPL. 72239/2026 and CM APPL.
72240/2026
INDIAN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gagan Mathur, Adv.
versus
SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. V.K Sharma, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 15425/2026 & CM APPL. 72350/2026 and CM APPL.
72351/2026
INDIAN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gagan Mathur, Adv.
versus
DR S K KUNDALIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. V.K Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 15.10.2026
1. These writ petitions assail a common order dated 30 January
1
2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 1502/2023
and 1508/2023.
1
“the Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:52:07
W.P.(C) 15402/2026 & W.P.(C) 15425/2026 Page 1 of 4

2. Mr. Gagan Mathur, learned Counsel for the Indian Agricultural
2
Research Institute , submits that the Tribunal has not considered the
issues raised by him.
3. We have accordingly heard him at length.
4. The challenge is only to the extent of the direction contained in
the impugned judgment, to the petitioner, to pay interest to the
respondent on the amount of gratuity of the respondent which had
been withheld by the petitioner.
5. The fact that delayed retiral benefits also entail payment of
interest stands settled by the Supreme Court in its decision in S K Dua
3
v. State of Haryana on which the Tribunal has correctly relied.
6. We may reproduce, for ready reference, the following passages
from the said decision:
“14. 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.
2
“IARI” hereinafter
3
(2008) 3 SCC 44
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:52:07
W.P.(C) 15402/2026 & W.P.(C) 15425/2026 Page 2 of 4

15. To us, the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that
the High Court ought to have entered into the merits of the matter
which is based on documentary evidence is well-taken. In our
considered view, the writ petition ought to have been admitted by
issuing Rule nisi and ought to have been decided on merits. The
High Court, however, dismissed the petition by a cryptic order
which reads thus:
“The petitioner seeks only payment of interest on the
delayed payment of retiral benefits. We, however, relegate
the petitioner to avail of his remedies before the Civil
Court, if so advised.
Dismissed with the above observations.”
7. We, therefore, also examine as to whether the withholding of
the respondent’s gratuity was justified. Even as per the IARI, the
withholding of the respondent’s gratuity was in terms of Rule 8(4)(c)
of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972.
8. Rule 8(4)(c) permits withholding of retiral gratuity on the
ground that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him.
9. The respondent superannuated in 2016. Ten years have passed
since then, and no disciplinary proceedings have been instituted
against him.
10. In the circumstances, we find that the Tribunal was correct in
observing that the very ground for withholding the respondent’s
gratuity was unjustified.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:52:07
W.P.(C) 15402/2026 & W.P.(C) 15425/2026 Page 3 of 4

11. In that view of the matter, the IARI cannot escape the liability
to interest in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in S k
Dua .
12. We, therefore, find no cause to interfere with the judgment
passed by the Tribunal.
13. The writ petitions dismissed in limine .
14. We direct compliance with the order passed by the Tribunal
within six weeks from today.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, J.
OCTOBER 15, 2026
dsn
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:52:07
W.P.(C) 15402/2026 & W.P.(C) 15425/2026 Page 4 of 4