Mandatory 12% Interest Payable on Backdated Career Promotions Following Delay in Implementing Apex Court Directions

The applicant, a 71-year-old retired Supervisor from the Department of Posts, was entitled to financial upgradations under the TBOP (Time Bound One Promotion) and BCR (Biennial Cadre Review) schemes effective from 01.08.1991 and 01.07.1995 respectively

While the respondents eventually granted these benefits and paid arrears amounting to pay, allowances, pension, and gratuity during 2022-23, they failed to pay interest on the delayed amounts

The applicant relied on a landmark Supreme Court order in UOI v. S. Bheesmachar (2017), which mandated a 12% interest rate for delayed payments to similarly situated employees

The respondents contended that the delay was due to the administrative necessity of verifying old records and was not intentional

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed payment of arrears of pay and retiral benefits in light of the Supreme Court's directions in S. Bheesmachar

2. Whether the administrative delay in processing records justifies the non-payment of interest on statutory and service-related arrears

The Tribunal applied the principle of Stare Decisis and the doctrine of precedent, specifically following the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order in UOI v. S. Bheesmachar, which established that delayed payments under these schemes attract 12% interest p.a. from the date of the original judgment

Relied on The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, which mandates that court directions must be implement without reservation

Relied on Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, which dictates that the validity of an order must be judged by the reasons mentioned therein and not supplemented by subsequent affidavits

The Tribunal found that the applicant was "similarly situated" to the employees in the S. Bheesmachar case, a fact not controverted by the respondents

It reasoned that judicial orders passed by the Apex Court are binding and cannot be nullified by administrative delays or "genuine difficulty" in verifying records

The Tribunal noted that the respondents' rejection of the applicant's representation was "cryptic" and lacked recorded reasoning, thereby violating the principle that "reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion" as established in Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar

Having previously granted similar relief in Girija Sankar Mishra v. UOI (OA 739/2022), the Tribunal maintained consistency in applying the 12% interest rule to the delayed disbursement of TBOP/BCR arrears

The Tribunal quashed the implied rejection of the applicant's claim and directed the respondents to calculate and pay interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed arrears of pay, allowances, and retiral benefits within 60 days of the order