Competent authority must verify delayed retiral-dues claims, issue a speaking order, and release admissible dues within three months.

The applicant, Ved Prakash Gupta, joined the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 6 March 1978 and retired as a Malaria Inspector on 31 August 2017. He claimed delayed payment of retiral benefits, including commutation of pension, gratuity, leave encashment, 7th Central Pay Commission arrears, bonus and dearness allowance arrears

Against the commutation value of pension of ₹13,76,592, ₹9,50,992 was paid on 9 July 2019 and the balance of ₹4,25,600 was paid subsequently, allegedly without interest.

Gratuity of ₹12,12,750 was payable, but only ₹12,01,200 was initially paid on 9 July 2019, leaving a shortfall of ₹11,550. Leave encashment of ₹7,35,000 was paid in two instalments—₹7,28,000 on 18 January 2018 and ₹7,000 on 7 February 2019.

The applicant had earlier filed OA No. 3263/2018, which was disposed of on 26 March 2019. He stated that ₹2,72,904 was subsequently paid towards interest on 9 May 2022, but maintained that the amount did not fully satisfy his entitlement.

After pursuing the matter through representations and applications under the Right to Information Act, he filed the present OA seeking implementation of the pension payment order dated 13 November 2017, payment of outstanding retiral dues and interest, including interest at 18% or such rate as deemed appropriate

Whether the applicant was entitled to further payment of interest or other outstanding amounts in respect of delayed commutation of pension, gratuity, leave encashment, 7th Pay Commission arrears, bonus and DA arrears?

Whether the Tribunal should itself determine and recalculate the applicant’s item-wise monetary claims, or direct the respondent Corporation to verify them against the official records and applicable rules?

Whether the respondent Corporation was required to pass a reasoned and speaking order and release any amount found admissible within a specified period?

The Tribunal applied the principle that claims for delayed retiral benefits must be examined with reference to the applicable service, pension and financial rules, the relevant service and pension records, the dates on which amounts became due, the dates of actual payment and any interest already disbursed

It further applied the administrative-law requirement that a competent authority must pass a reasoned and speaking order when adjudicating a disputed monetary claim, particularly where different components of the claim require verification

The Tribunal also directed that the earlier order dated 26 March 2019 in OA No. 3263/2018 and the payment of ₹2,72,904 towards interest be duly considered and credited

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s calculation sheets contained several distinct claims relating to commutation, gratuity, leave encashment and arrears, but that the figures had been prepared by the applicant and required verification against official records

Since entitlement depended on the actual due dates, payment dates, amounts paid and the applicable rules, the Tribunal considered it inappropriate to undertake a component-wise recalculation in the OA itself

It therefore directed the competent authority to examine the entire claim, give credit for the ₹2,72,904 already paid as interest, and determine the admissibility of each component by reference to the relevant records and rules

The requirement of a speaking order ensured that any rejection or reduction of the claim would be supported by specific reasons

The competent authority of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was directed to examine the applicant’s item-wise claims concerning commutation of pension, gratuity, leave encashment, 7th Pay Commission arrears, bonus and DA arrears, after verifying the official records, applicable rules and amounts already paid, including ₹2,72,904 towards interest

The authority was required to pass a reasoned and speaking order and, if any amount was found admissible, release it within three months from receipt of the Tribunal’s order

The OA was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.