Outstanding admissible retiral dues must be released within three months.

Sixteen retired MCD employees, who had retired on different dates and from different posts and zones, applied for release of their outstanding retiral dues.

Some had received part-payments, but their dues under all relevant heads had not been fully paid.

The respondents stated that payment was delayed because of paucity of funds and that some payments had already been released.

The applicants sought disposal in terms of the Tribunal’s decision in OA No. 1737/2025; the respondents did not oppose that course but requested additional time to process the sixteen claims.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to process and release the applicants’ outstanding retiral dues, after accounting for payments already made.

2. Whether the respondents should communicate reasons to an applicant where an amount is withheld or found not payable under a particular head.

The Tribunal referred to Rajbir Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors., as reproduced in its decision in OA No. 1737/2025.

That decision applied the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972—including Rule 68—to delayed payment of retiral dues, and stated that interest is payable where delay is attributable to the employer; the applicable rate is the GPF rate for the relevant years, with compound interest also applying to delayed pension and gratuity payments.

In the present OA, the Tribunal directed payment of admissible outstanding dues and required a reasoned communication where a claim was withheld or not found payable.

The respondents’ affidavit acknowledged both the delay, attributed to paucity of funds, and the fact that the applicants’ dues had not been fully paid.

Given that admitted position, and the parties’ submissions that the matter could be disposed of consistently with OA No. 1737/2025, the Tribunal issued directions for the respondents to assess each applicant’s claim, adjust prior payments, and release any balance found payable.

It required the respondents to explain by a reasoned and speaking communication any amount withheld or found not payable.

The Tribunal stated that it was not expressing an opinion on the merits of the case while referring to the principles concerning interest in the earlier decision.

Any amount withheld or found not payable had to be explained to the concerned applicant through a reasoned and speaking communication; the respondents were also directed to avoid further delay.

No order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.