Interest on withheld retirement dues is unwarranted when payment follows disciplinary proceedings without delay.

The applicant, who retired from BSNL on 28 February 2006 while disciplinary proceedings were pending, was exonerated by order dated 28 September 2012.

He later received gratuity, leave encashment and CGEGIS benefits, but without interest, and sought interest through representations, including one dated 23 April 2013.

He filed this O.A. in 2017, without an application for condonation of delay; the respondents opposed the claim on limitation and on the ground that the dues were paid after the disciplinary proceedings concluded.

Whether the O.A. was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, in the absence of an application showing sufficient cause for delay.

Whether the applicant was entitled to interest on gratuity, leave encashment and CGEGIS withheld while disciplinary proceedings were pending.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 prescribes the period for filing an application before the Tribunal and permits admission after that period only where the applicant establishes sufficient cause for delay.

Relying on Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 685, the Tribunal noted that limitation has substantive consequences and that unexplained negligence should not deprive the opposing party of a right accrued through vigilance.

The Tribunal also relied on Chairman-cum-Managing Director v. Sri Rabindranath Choubey, AIR 2020 SC 2978, for the proposition that gratuity may be withheld during disciplinary proceedings, while the delayed-payment provisions in Sections 7(3) and 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 remain relevant if the employee is fully exonerated.

It further applied R. Veerabhadram v. Government of A.P., (1999) 9 SCC 43, which held that interest was not payable where gratuity was lawfully withheld pending proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the applicant retired in 2006, was exonerated in 2012, and filed the O.A. in 2017 without seeking condonation or explaining the delay; it therefore treated the claim as time-barred under Section 21.

On the merits, it reasoned that the gratuity and leave encashment had been withheld during pending disciplinary proceedings and that the dues were paid after those proceedings were dropped.

Applying the cited authorities, it concluded that withholding during the proceedings was proper and that, in the circumstances, no interest was payable.

It dismissed the O.A. and made no order as to costs.