The Delhi High Court in the case Badam Verva v Delhi Buiding And Other Construction Workers Welfare Board And Anr observed and has stated that the right to pension of construction workers cannot be deprived of merely due to hyper-technical issues or the requirements such as production of original MR Slips or the serial number of the notary records.
The bench headed by Justice Prathiba M Singh in the case observed while noting that the large number of construction workers are either illiterate or even semi-illiterate and hail from rural background. Thus, the court stated that their pension benefit application must be processed without any delay.
In the present case, the court noted that entry 372 of the Delhi (Right of Citizen to Time Bound Delivery of Services) Act, 2011, specifies 30 days as the period during which the pension application has to be processed before the court. Adding to it, it has been stated that the SOP of the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Board stipulates disposal of such application which is made by construction workers within the period of 60 days.
The court stated that it is being clear in the said case that once the pension benefit application is made by the construction worker, while bearing in mind the financial status of such workers, thus, the said application ought to be processed without any delay.
Further, the court in the case observed and has granted relief to a construction worker who had applied to the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board for release of her pension as per Rule 372 but the pension benefits were not being released.
Therefore, it being the case of her that despite an order of a coordinate bench directing expeditious processing of applications for grant and release of pensionary benefits by the Board, she and the other beneficiaries received deficiency letters in respect of the pension applications of them.
The court rejected the application for pension of the petitioner on the ground that she was not the member of the Board on the date of superannuation.
However, the writ petition was earlier preferred by the construction worker which was disposed of by the single judge on April 18 last year with a direction on the Board in order to pass an appropriate orders with regard to her claim for pensionary benefits.
An application was filed by her seeking recall of the order which was being disposed of with the direction to the Board to decide her case within the period of two weeks.
Therefore, the board in the case issued the second rejection letter to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner then moved the fresh petition for sanction and the release of her plea.
The bench headed by Justice Singh noted that the construction worker was registered with the Board since September, 2009, and that at the time of superannuation, she had worked as a building and other construction worker for more than one year. The court also noted that she had paid her contribution for the entire period.
Further, the court stated that the period of contribution extended by beyond her retirement or that the renewal of membership was done after the age of superannuation which cannot lead to the denial of pensionary benefits.
It has also been directed by the said court that the applicable pension to the construction worker shall be disbursed to her with an interest at the rate of 6% with effect from 06.02.2022. Thus, the court in its order stated that the amount shall be disbursed by July 01.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the Petitioner has had to undergo a second round of litigation, that too after exercising the statutory appeal, and was denied her rightful pension for a considerably long period, for an amount of 25000/- are awarded to the Petitioner. The said costs shall be paid by the Board to the Petitioner within the period of eight weeks.
Accordingly, the court disposed of the plea.