The Delhi High Court in the case Rajo versus Delhi Buiding And Others Construction Workers Board & Anr observed and has directed Delhi Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board to consider accepting the applications of constructions workers prior to the period of six months before they become eligible for receiving of the pension.
The bench headed by Justice Rekha Palli in the case observed that since the Building and Other Construction Workers, Act 1996 and Rules are silent with regards to the time period during which pension must be sanctioned to the workers after they attained the age of 60 years, thus, the same would save a lot of inconvenience to them if they are permitted to submit their applications which is six months prior to their becoming eligible for receiving pension.
Therefore, it has been directed by the respondent board for considering the accepting applications of the constructions workers six months before they become eligible for receiving pension so that once they reach the age of superannuation and their pension can be sanctioned at the earliest without any further delay. In the present case, the court was hearing a petition of a construction worker who was duly being registered with the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, wherein seeking for release of her pension along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
It has been submitted by the counsel appearing for the Board that the order which is passed on January 6 which sanctioned pension in favour of the petitioner, February 1, the date when she became eligible for receiving the pension. Further, it has been submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Board, having delayed the sanctioning of pension despite her eligibility to receive the same, ought to pay interest to her at 18% per annum on the amount which is being delayed. The counsel appearing for the Board objected the contention that the respondent Board cannot be faulted for the delay.
The bench headed by Justice Palli stated that the Board was justified in urging that pension could not be sanctioned in the favour of petitioner without her submitting the requisite documents and, therefore, it cannot be stated that there was any inordinate delay on its part in sanctioning the pension. The bench observed that the same would be in the interest of justice that an interest is to be paid by the petitioner on the delayed pension amount “after discounting 45 days” from the date she submitted her documents i.e., on August 5, last year. Accordingly, the court disposed of the writ petition wherein directing the respondent to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the delayed amount of pension with effect from September 21, 2022 (after excluding 45 days w.e.f. 05.08.2022).
