Delayed retiral benefits accrue interest at GPF rate, subject to High Court's final decision.

The applicant, Manmohan Gulati, retired as an Electric Motor Driver from the Municipal Corporation Delhi (MCD) and filed an Original Application (OA) seeking the release of his pension and other retiral dues, alongside interest on delayed payments.

The respondents' counsel presented a tabular chart indicating that Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (₹13,10,275/-) and Commutation of Pension (₹9,61,648/-) were paid between October 2024 and September 2025.

General Provident Fund (₹22,88,130/-) and Group Insurance Scheme (₹12,504/-) were paid in August and September 2024, respectively.

However, ACP Arrear (₹82,558/-) and MACP Arrear (₹64,563/-), though bills passed in 2016 and 2017, remained unpaid.

The respondents cited financial stringency for the delay in pending payments and stated that they would be made when funds became available.

The applicant's counsel contended that the delay was due to administrative lapses and not attributable to the applicant.

He further argued that the applicant was entitled to interest at the GPF rate based on the Full Bench judgment in *Rajbir Singh v. Commissioner, MCD* dated October 30, 2025.

The respondents countered that the *Rajbir Singh* judgment was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in *Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Rajbir Singh*, W.P.(C) No. 19558/2025, where the judgment had been reserved.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the release of pending retiral dues, including ACP and MACP arrears?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues at the GPF rate for the relevant years?

3. Whether the release of such dues and interest should be subject to the final outcome of the pending writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi challenging the *Rajbir Singh* judgment?

The Tribunal primarily applied the precedent established by its own Full Bench judgment in *Rajbir Singh v. Commissioner, MCD* (judgment dated October 30, 2025), which held that interest shall be payable at the GPF rate for the relevant years on delayed payment of General Provident Fund (GPF), pension, gratuity, and other retiral dues of MCD employees, provided the delay is not attributable to the employee.

The court considered the rival submissions and found that the issue of interest on delayed retiral dues was settled by the Full Bench judgment in *Rajbir Singh v. Commissioner, MCD*.

This judgment explicitly mandated interest at the GPF rate for the relevant years on delayed payments of GPF, pension, gratuity, and other retiral dues, provided the delay was not the employee's fault.

The court noted that the respondents admitted to unpaid ACP and MACP arrears, with bills passed several years prior, indicating a delay.

While the respondents cited financial stringency, the *Rajbir Singh* judgment's principle of attributing delay to administrative lapses when not caused by the employee appeared applicable.

However, the court also acknowledged that the *Rajbir Singh* judgment itself was under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

Therefore, while applying the *Rajbir Singh* precedent, the court deemed it necessary to make the relief contingent upon the final outcome of the higher court's decision.

This payment must be made from the date the amounts became due until the date of actual payment, within eight weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of the order.

However, the release of any dues and interest was expressly made subject to the final outcome of *Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Rajbir Singh*, W.P.(C) No. 19558/2025, pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.