Retired DRDO Employee Gets Interest On Benefits Delayed About 33 Months; CAT Sets 9% If Interest Is Unpaid After Two Months

The applicant, a retired Technical Officer, superannuated on 29 February 2016.

Her pension, gratuity, commuted pension, and leave encashment were paid on different dates in 2018; revised gratuity and commuted-pension amounts were credited in January 2019.

She alleged that pensionary benefits were delayed by approximately 33 months and sought interest at 18% per annum.

The respondents attributed the delay to disciplinary proceedings, incomplete pension papers, and the applicant’s failure to receive the PPO.

The disciplinary proceedings had concluded before retirement, and vigilance clearance had been issued on 12 February 2016.

After making representations in 2020 and 2021, the applicant filed this O.A.

Relying on S.K. Dua v. Union of India (full citation unavailable), the Tribunal stated that a claim arising from delay in payment of pensionary benefits must be assessed in light of the circumstances that caused the delay.

It also applied the principle that receipt of a PPO by the pensioner is not, by itself, a condition precedent to release of benefits where the required authorization and directions have been issued.

The Tribunal directed interest at prevailing GPF rates on overdue payments; the order provides for a higher rate of 9% if payment is delayed beyond the time allowed for compliance.

The Tribunal found that the disciplinary proceedings relied on by the respondents had concluded before the applicant’s retirement and that vigilance clearance had been granted before that date.

It therefore did not accept those matters as an adequate explanation for the subsequent delay.

Nor did it accept that the applicant’s alleged non-receipt of the PPO could, by itself, prevent payment: release of pensionary benefits depends on authorization by the competent authority and action by the Pension Disbursing Authority.

Given that payment was made only after a considerable delay—approximately 33 months—the Tribunal held that interest was warranted.

The respondents were directed to pay interest at prevailing GPF rates on the specified overdue payments, calculated from the dates the amounts became due until actual payment, within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

If payment was delayed beyond that period, the applicant would be entitled to interest at 9%.

No order as to costs was made.