Delayed payment of retiral benefits attracts interest at GPF rates absent employee-attributed delay.

The applicant served as a teacher under the respondents from 1983 to 1996, during which she was sent on deputation to the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) from 1991 to 1994.

She was absorbed into NVS on April 1, 1994, and retired from service in June 2016.

The applicant filed the present Original Application (OA) seeking the release of her pension and other retiral dues along with interest, alleging administrative lapses by the respondents.

While the respondents eventually paid certain amounts toward pro-rata pension, leave encashment, and DCRG (Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity), they failed to file a "due and drawn statement" as previously directed by the Tribunal.

The respondents cited financial stringency as the reason for the delay in paying interest.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits and the applicable rate for such interest.

2. Whether the financial stringency of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) serves as a valid justification for the delay in releasing retiral dues.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles established by its Full Bench in Rajbir Singh v. Commissioner, MCD (decided on 30.10.2025), which held that interest on delayed payments of GPF, pension, gratuity, and other retiral dues is payable at the prevailing GPF rate for the relevant years, provided the delay is not attributable to the employee.

The Tribunal also acknowledged the pendency of a challenge to this rule in the Delhi High Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Rajbir Singh, W.P.(C) No. 19558/2025.

The Tribunal found that the delay in releasing the applicant's retiral benefits was not attributable to her but occurred due to administrative lapses on the part of the respondents.

In applying the Rajbir Singh precedent, the Tribunal determined that the legal entitlement to interest on delayed terminal benefits is settled law within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

Regarding the respondents' plea of financial stringency, the Tribunal implicitly rejected this as a defense against the statutory or quasi-statutory obligation to pay interest on delayed dues.

However, noting that the governing precedent is currently under challenge before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the Tribunal reasoned that any relief granted must be provisional and subject to the outcome of that writ petition.

This exercise must be completed within eight weeks of receipt of the order.

Additionally, the respondents were directed to furnish a "due and drawn statement" to the applicant.

The holding specifies that the release of these dues and interest remains subject to the final outcome of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Rajbir Singh, W.P.(C) No. 19558/2025.

No costs were awarded.