Delayed payment of retirement benefits accrues interest at GPF rate.

Pushpa Rani, a retired LHV from the Health Department (Primary Health), MCD, filed an Original Application (OA) seeking the release of retirement gratuity, other retiral dues (including 2nd and 3rd MACP, and 7th CPC arrears), and interest at 18% on all delayed payments

The applicant retired on June 30, 2022, and partial gratuity payment was made on September 19, 2024, leaving a significant portion of gratuity, MACP arrears, and CPC arrears unpaid

The applicant contended that the issue was covered by the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal in *Rajbir Singh vs. MCD* (O.A. No. 2821/2023, decided on October 30, 2025)

The respondents, while acknowledging the *Rajbir Singh* decision, informed the Tribunal that they had challenged it before the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 19558/2025, which was pending

Whether the applicant is entitled to the release of remaining retirement gratuity and other retiral dues, including MACP and 7th CPC arrears, with interest for delayed payment

Whether the issue of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits is covered by the Tribunal's Full Bench decision in *Rajbir Singh vs. MCD*

The Tribunal applied the principle established in its Full Bench decision in *Rajbir Singh vs. MCD* (O.A. No. 2821/2023, decided on October 30, 2025), which held that interest would be payable on delayed payment of GPF, Pension, Gratuity, etc., at the rate of GPF for the relevant years, calculated on a compound interest basis

This decision by the Full Bench became the binding precedent for similar cases before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted that the core issue of delayed payment of retirement benefits and the entitlement to interest on such delayed payments was squarely covered by its own Full Bench decision in *Rajbir Singh vs. MCD*

The applicant's request for delayed payments, including gratuity, MACP, and 7th CPC arrears, directly fell within the scope of the *Rajbir Singh* ruling

Despite the respondents' appeal against the *Rajbir Singh* decision before the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal, as a matter of judicial discipline, was bound to follow its Full Bench's precedent

The Tribunal recognized the pending challenge but opted to dispose of the OA in terms of the existing binding precedent, subject to the outcome of the High Court's review

The relief granted was explicitly made subject to the outcome of W.P.(C) No. 19558/2025 pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, and an indemnity bond was to be obtained from the applicant at the time of releasing the interest payments