Compound interest at GPF rates is mandatory for delayed retirement benefits despite pending administrative name-change verification.

The applicant, a Chief Medical Officer (SAG), joined the Central Health Services in 1993 under her maiden name, "Dr. Anu Goel"

Following her marriage, she sought to update her service records to "Dr. Anu Aggarwal" in October 2019 to align with her PAN and Aadhaar cards

While the name change request was pending, she applied for Voluntary Retirement (VRS), which was accepted effective July 10, 2020

Despite submitting identity documents and a public notice of her name change, the respondents delayed the release of her General Provident Fund (GPF) until January 15, 2021, citing the pending name correction and the need for a marriage certificate

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking 18% interest on the delayed GPF payment for the period between July 11, 2020, and January 14, 2021

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of GPF for the period of six months following her retirement

2. Whether administrative delays stemming from a pending name change request constitute a valid justification for withholding retirement benefits

The Tribunal emphasized the legal obligation of respondents to act fairly and judiciously regarding retirement benefits

It primarily relied on the Larger Bench decision in Rajbir Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anothers (O.A. No. 2821/2023), which established that interest is mandatory on delayed payments of GPF, pension, and gratuity

The rule stipulates that interest on delayed GPF must be calculated at the prevailing GPF rates for the relevant years on a compound interest basis

The Tribunal found that the GPF payment was delayed by over six months without a valid explanation

It rejected the respondents' contention that the name change process justified the delay, noting that the GPF was eventually disbursed in the applicant’s maiden name anyway, thereby rendering the respondents' procedural objection irrelevant

The court observed that the applicant had furnished sufficient documentation (PAN, Aadhaar, affidavit, and public notice) to establish her identity

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the delay was "untenable and extraneous" to the processing of GPF and applied the binding precedent of Rajbir Singh, which mandates interest for such administrative lapses

The respondents were directed to calculate and pay the interest within six weeks from the receipt of the order

No costs were awarded