Interest on retiral dues cannot be claimed afresh after prior adjudication without an interest award.

The applicant’s father was appointed as a Sepoy in the Central Excise Department on 3 May 1956. After suffering an accident while on duty in 1975, he allegedly became incapable of performing his duties. He sought discharge and thereafter voluntary retirement, and was ultimately superannuated on 31 July 1994, without payment of his retiral benefits.

The applicant’s father instituted Writ Petition No. 3386 of 1998 before the Allahabad High Court, which, by order dated 30 September 2013, directed the respondents to pay the post-retiral benefits in accordance with law within two months.

A disciplinary proceeding under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, including a charge-sheet dated 16 June 1994, was also stated to have been pending, and the respondents claimed that the retiral dues were withheld until its conclusion.

The applicant’s father died on 30 December 2014 and his mother died on 14 December 2018. The retiral dues and family-pension arrears, amounting to ₹11,13,689, were ultimately credited to the applicant on 4 May 2022.

The applicant thereafter sought interest on gratuity, CGEGIS, leave encashment, arrears of pension and family pension, as well as year-wise pension details.

The Tribunal proceeded to decide the matter on merits under Rule 15(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, as no one appeared for the applicant even on the revised call.

Whether the applicant was entitled to interest on the delayed payment of gratuity, CGEGIS, leave encashment, pension arrears and family-pension arrears?

Whether a fresh claim for interest could be entertained when the Allahabad High Court had already adjudicated the claim for post-retiral benefits and had not directed payment of interest?

The Tribunal proceeded under Rule 15(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which permits determination of an application on merits in the circumstances contemplated by the Rule.

It considered the binding effect of the Allahabad High Court’s order dated 30 September 2013, which directed payment of post-retiral benefits “in accordance with law” but did not award interest.

The Tribunal applied the principle that a claim already adjudicated in earlier proceedings cannot be reopened through a subsequent application seeking an additional relief arising from the same retiral dues, particularly where the earlier order contained no direction for payment of interest.

Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, was referred to only as the respondents’ explanation for withholding the retiral benefits during the disciplinary proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s father had already approached the Allahabad High Court regarding non-payment of his post-retiral benefits, and that the High Court had directed payment of those benefits.

The respondents subsequently released the dues during the contempt proceedings, and the entire amount was stated to have been paid by 4 May 2022.

Since the High Court’s order did not direct payment of interest, and the claim concerned interest on the very same retiral dues covered by the earlier litigation, the Tribunal held that the matter had already been adjudicated and could not be re-agitated before the Tribunal.

The respondents’ reliance on the pending disciplinary proceedings further explained the delay but was not independently determinative of the dismissal.

It held that the applicant was not entitled to a fresh direction for interest on the retiral and pensionary amounts because the underlying claim had already been adjudicated by the Allahabad High Court and no interest had been awarded in that judgment.

All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.