Delhi Development Authority vs Krishan Kant Sharma

$~57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8896/2025 & CM APPL. 38022/2025
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, ASC
DDA with Ms. Suruchi Khandelwal, Adv.
versus
KRISHAN KANT SHARMA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar and Mr.
Birpal Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 04.05.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 6 October 2022
1
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 4583/2018 and
21 April 2025 in CP 106/2023.
2. We may note, at the outset, that, though the order dated 21
April 2025 in CP 106/2023 renotified the contempt petition for 3 July
2025, subsequently, the Tribunal has disposed of the contempt petition
in view of the pendency of this writ petition.
3. OA 4583/2018, preferred by the respondent before the Tribunal,
sought release of the respondent’s retiral benefits, including pension,
GPF and gratuity. The respondent had been compulsorily retired from
1
“the Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
12:42:25
W.P.(C) 8896/2025 Page 1 of 9

service, following disciplinary proceedings, on 24 December 1991.
4. We may reproduce, for ready reference, the opening paragraph
2
as well as paras 8, 11 and 8 to 10 of the judgment dated 6 October
2022 of the Tribunal, whereby the OA was disposed of, thus:
“This Original Application has been filed by the applicant under
Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the
following relief(s):
“a) Direct the Respondent to release the retirement
benefits including Pension, GPF and Gratuity to the
applicant.
b) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon’ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice
in favour of the applicant.”
*
8. In the case of compulsory retirement, which has been
hanging since the date of superannuation, i.e., 24.12.1991, the
applicant has been denied relief without any justification merely on
the pretext that the files are not traceable. Also, it has been
contended by learned counsel for the respondent that outcome of
the said major penalty charge sheet is not ascertainable.
*
11. Further, it is the contention of the respondent that in order
to process the case of grant of pensionary benefits, retiring
official/office is required to submit pension papers duly verified by
controlling officer for acceptance of Competent Authority, thus,
the said submission ignores the fact that applicant had submitted all
his papers and Department, in absence of any file could have
created a new file on said basis. The onus lies for the aforesaid
processing of the pension papers on the respondent since file itself
is not traceable in the DDA. It is for the respondent department to
satisfy itself regarding the documents for the grant of pensionary
benefits to the retiring official which has been hanging over since
24.12.1991, i.e., the date of superannuation, no justifiable reasons
have been assigned except the aforesaid, despite the fact that the
applicant has already submitted all his pension papers alongwith
2
There is a discrepancy in the para numbering in the judgment as paras 8, 8 to 10 follow 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
12:42:25
W.P.(C) 8896/2025 Page 2 of 9

PBR also, which was found to be missing.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
present OA needs to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The
respondent department is directed to process the case of the
applicant for grant of all pensionary benefits, as prayed and process
his case on the basis of documents submitted by the applicant, even
though the file is not traceable, within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing
which the applicant shall also be entitled to interest at GPF rates in
default thereafter till the date of actual payment.
9. Needless to say that the applicant should also furnish an
undertaking/indemnity for release of the pensionary benefits just to
protect the respondent organization in the event any memo of
charge sheet as mentioned herein above has ever been
contemplated.
10. The OA is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no
order as to costs.”
5. The petitioner never chose to challenge the above judgment
dated 6 October 2022 of the Tribunal. Rather, we are constrained to
note, with some degree of disquietude, an officer of the department
chose to suo motu to read down the order passed by the Tribunal by
disbursing arrears of retiral benefits of the respondent only for a
period of three years prior to the passing of the order.
6. Mr. Agnihotri who appears for the petitioner, submits that this
decision was bona fide and based on the judgment of the Supreme
3
Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh .
7. We will deal, presently, with the decision in Tarsem Singh .
However, we are clear in our mind that the order dated 6 October
2022 of the Tribunal in the OA 4583/2018 allowed the prayers in the
3
(2008) 8 SCC 648
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
12:42:25
W.P.(C) 8896/2025 Page 3 of 9

OA unconditionally and specifically directed the petitioner to process
the case of the respondent for grant of all pensionary benefits as
prayed.
8. Though Mr. Agnihotri has endeavoured to submit that there was
no period specified in the order, we reject the submission outright.
When the Tribunal had reproduced the prayers of the respondent, for
grant of his pensionary benefits, found that the file for grant of
pensionary benefits was hanging since 1991, and concluded with a
direction that the respondent’s file had to be processed for grant of all
pensionary benefits, there is not even a scintilla of ambiguity in the
decision of the Tribunal as could result in any officer bona fide
coming to a conclusion that arrears were required to be paid only for
three years.
9. We express our unhappiness at the fact that, without
challenging the order dated 6 October 2022 of the Tribunal and
despite the clear direction contained in the order, a departmental
officer chose to rewrite the order and restrict its applicability to a
period of three years prior to the passing of the order.
10. As the officer is not before us, we say no more.
11. Be that as it may, on finding that he had been granted arrears
only for a period of three years prior to the passing of the order by the
Tribunal, the respondent approached the Tribunal by way of CP
106/2023.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
12:42:25
W.P.(C) 8896/2025 Page 4 of 9

12. In the said CP, the Tribunal, on 21 April 2025, noted the fact
that, in the order passed in OA 4583/2018, there was no restriction on
the arrears payable to the respondent and, therefore, directed the
petitioner to disburse the arrears as per the order passed in the OA.
13. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has now challenged, before
us, both the order dated 21 April 2025 in CP 106/2023, as well as,
belatedly, the order dated 6 October 2022 passed in OA 4583/2018.
14. At the cost of repetition, we may again note that, in the
judgment dated 6 October 2022 passed by the Tribunal in OA
4583/2018, there was no restriction on the arrears of retiral benefits
payable to the respondent and that the Tribunal had allowed the
prayers in the OA without any caveat. It was not open, therefore, to
the petitioner to sit in appeal over the order passed by the Tribunal and
disburse arrears only for a period of three years, irrespective of
whether the decision was taken on the basis of an order passed by the
Supreme Court in another case or for any other reason. The Tribunal,
therefore, was justified in directing the petitioner to disburse the
arrears to the respondent as earlier directed in the OA.
15. Nonetheless, to satisfy ourselves, we have perused the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh to examine whether the said
decision would justify restricting the arrears payable to the respondent
for a period of three years.
16. Tarsem Singh was a case which dealt with disability pension.
In that case, the respondent Tarsem Singh was invalidated out of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
12:42:25
W.P.(C) 8896/2025 Page 5 of 9

Army service on 13 November 1983. It was 16 years thereafter, in
1999, that he sought disability pension. It was in these circumstances
that the Supreme Court observed that the entitlement to disability
pension would be restricted for a period of three years prior to Tarsem
Singh approaching the court.
17. Besides, Tarsem Singh now stands revisited by the Supreme
Court recently in its judgment in Union of India v. Sgt Girish
4
Kumar , rendered on 12 February 2026. We may reproduce, from the
said judgment, paras, 15, 16, 20 and 22 thus:
15. Pension, as authoritatively settled by this Court, is neither
a bounty nor an ex gratia payment dependent upon the grace of the
State. It is a deferred portion of compensation for past service and,
upon fulfilment of the governing conditions, matures into a vested
and enforceable right. Pensionary entitlements, therefore, partake
the character of property, and cannot be withheld, reduced, or
extinguished except by authority of law . This principle applies with
full vigour to disability pension, which is grounded not merely in
length of service, but in the impairment suffered by a member of
the Armed Forces in the course of, or attributable to, the service
rendered to the nation. The disability pension is not a matter of
largesse, but a recognition of sacrifice made in service of the
nation.
16. The Union of India, as a model employer, is expected to act
with fairness, consistency and even-handedness in the
administration of benefits conferred upon those who have served
the nation. When a benefit is recognised by a policy and affirmed
by judicial pronouncement, its application cannot be selective or
uneven. The judgment rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this
5
Court in Ram Avtar's case (supra) was a judgment in rem and,
therefore, the benefit of same ought to have been extended by
Union of India to the eligible ex-servicemen instead of requiring
them to file original applications before the Tribunal seeking their
entitlement.
*
4
2026 SCC OnLine SC 194
5
Union of India v. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
12:42:25
W.P.(C) 8896/2025 Page 6 of 9

20. This Court has, in a consistent line of decisions, recognised
that right to receive disability pension is a valuable right and once
found due, the benefit of the same has to be given from the date it
became due. The same cannot be curtailed by restricting the benefit
to a period of three years preceding the filing of the original
application. In the absence of any compelling reason to take a
different view, we find no justification to depart from the view
consistently taken by this Court.
*
22. The reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of a
two-Judge Bench of this Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) is of no
assistance to it, as the legal landscape did not remain static after
decision in Tarsem Singh . Subsequently, a three-Judge Bench of
this Court in Ram Avtar (supra) , decided the issue of applicability
of instruction dated 31.01.2001 and the aforesaid decision is in
rem. For, yet another reason, the decision in Tarsem Singh (supra)
has no application to the case in hand as ex-servicemen in the
instant appeals are already in receipt of disability pension and are
only seeking re-computation of the disability pension. The right to
approach the Tribunal accrued to ex-servicemen only on
10.12.2014 i.e., when the decision in Ram Avtar (supra) was
rendered by this Court. Therefore, the bar contained in Section
22(1)(c) of the Act has no application to the claims filed by the ex-
servicemen before the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, we find that the original applications filed by the ex-
servicemen do not suffer from any delay or laches disentitling them
from claiming the relief of arrears of disability pension. Thus, the
objections founded on the delay and limitation are without any
merit.”
(Emphasis supplied)
18. In para 15, the Supreme Court has clearly held that pension is
neither a bounty nor an ex gratia payment dependent upon the grace
of the State, and is a deferred portion of compensation for past service.
On fulfilment of the governing conditions, it matures into a vested and
enforceable right. The Supreme Court has further observed, in clear
and unequivocal terms that “pensionary entitlements …. partake the
character of property”, and “cannot be withheld, reduced, or
extinguished except by authority of law”.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
12:42:25
W.P.(C) 8896/2025 Page 7 of 9

19. There can, therefore, be no justification for the petitioner
withholding the pensionary benefits of the respondent though he was
compulsorily retired from service in 1991.
20. Though Mr. Agnihotri sought to contend that certain relevant
documents had not been produced by the respondent as would entitle
him to pensions, we are unwilling to accept this as an explanation for
delay in disbursal of the retiral benefits. We may note, in this context,
that it was only after the respondent approached the Tribunal and after
the Tribunal passed an order that the petitioner condescended to
release retiral benefits to the respondent even for a period of three
years. The delay in release of the retiral benefits of the respondent
cannot, therefore, be justified in any sense of the word.
21. Additionally, a claim to disability pension is in addition to the
regular pension which is being drawn by the concerned ex-
serviceman. The ex-serviceman is, therefore, not left without any
retiral benefits, even if there is delay in disbursal of his disability
pension. As against this, in the present case, the respondent was not
paid a farthing, till the Tribunal passed the order dated 6 October
2022. Such a case cannot, therefore, be equated with the decision in
Tarsem Singh .
22. We cannot, therefore, accept the submission of Mr. Agnihotri
that the respondent was, by operation of the judgment in Tarsem
Singh , entitled to be released retiral benefits only for a period of three
years prior to his filing the OA 4583/2018 before the Tribunal.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
12:42:25
W.P.(C) 8896/2025 Page 8 of 9

23. Accordingly, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition
which is dismissed, with no orders as to costs.
24. We direct that the remaining retiral benefits of the respondent as
per order dated 6 October 2022 be positively disbursed within a period
of four weeks from today, failing which the said amount would carry
interest @ 8% p.a. till the actual disbursal.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
MAY 4, 2026
dsn
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
12:42:25
W.P.(C) 8896/2025 Page 9 of 9