Claim for Interest on Delayed Gratuity Barred by Res Judicata if Not Awarded in Initial Proceedings

The applicant, a retired Chief Workshop Manager (Bridge) who superannuated on 31.08.2010, approached the Tribunal seeking interest on the delayed payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

Previously, the applicant had filed O.A. No. 293 of 2021, which was decided on 15.10.2024, directing the respondents to release the withheld DCRG within four months.

This order was challenged by the Department in the Allahabad High Court (Writ A No. 12889 of 2025), which dismissed the writ on 16.09.2025, affirming the Tribunal’s directions.

Following substantial compliance and closure of contempt proceedings, the applicant filed the instant O.A. specifically seeking interest on the delayed payment from 10.02.2010 until actual payment.

1. Whether a fresh original application for interest on delayed DCRG is maintainable when such relief was not granted or sought in a previous concluded proceeding regarding the same principal amount.

2. Whether the present application is barred by the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata.

The Court applied the doctrine of res judicata and constructive res judicata, which precludes a party from re-litigating a matter that was or could have been decided in earlier proceedings between the same parties.

Rule 65 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 regarding interest on delayed gratuity and Rule 10(1)(c) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 regarding the withholding of gratuity during judicial proceedings.

The Tribunal observed that in the previous litigation (O.A. No. 293 of 2021), the applicant had successfully sought the release of DCRG, but no direction for interest was granted by the Tribunal or the Hon’ble High Court.

The court reasoned that if a specific relief, such as interest on delayed payment, is not allowed in the previous order, it is deemed to have been rejected or found unfit by the court.

Since the substantial directions of the first O.A. had been complied with and affirmed by the High Court without any modification regarding interest, the Tribunal held that a second O.A. on the same cause of action is legally impermissible. The court concluded that allowing such a claim now would violate the principle of finality of litigation as the claim is barred by constructive res judicata.

The court declined to admit the application and dismissed it at the admission stage itself. All associated Miscellaneous Applications were consequently disposed of with no order as to costs.