The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Raghunath vs Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board & Anr. consisting of Justice Prathiba M. Singh reiterated that the right to a pension of construction workers cannot be denied solely because of a difference in their birth dates, as long as the worker's identification can be proved and the claim is not fraudulent.
Facts:
In 2014, the Petitioner reached the age of superannuation. He had applied to the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board ('the Board') for the release of his pension in accordance with Rule 273 of the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002 ('the Rules'). In 2020, the Board was directed by Ld. Single Judge of this Court to process petitions for grant and release of pensionary benefits as quickly as possible. Following the issuance of the order, Petitioner and many other recipients received deficiency notices in relation to their pension applications. The Board issued a deficiency note to the Petitioner, stating that the age on the labour card and Aadhar card was different. Following receipt of the deficiency notice, the Petitioner provided an affidavit verifying his date of birth as January 1, 1955, as well as his Aadhar card, which reflected his age as January 1, 1955. This fact was also highlighted by Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner in his response to the Board's deficiency letter. As a result, the pensionary benefits have not been released.
Procedural History:
This petition was first heard in 2021, and notice was issued on that date. Following that, the petition was dismissed by order in 2022, with the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent promising that the Petitioner's pension would be released within 15 days. The Respondents, on the other hand, filed an application to recall the decision of 2022, stating that he was unable to receive pension from the Board. This Court granted the recall application on the basis that there was a conflict between sub-section 2 of Section 14 of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 ('the Act') and Rule 272 of the Rules.
A counter affidavit had been filed by the Secretary of the Board. But said affidavit was quite sketchy and did not give any basis for the rejection. A review of the same revealed that the only issue raised was that the Petitioner made his contribution between March 19, 2015, and February 18, 2016. As a result, the Board concluded that, given the contribution made and the Petitioner's inability to superannuate on January 1, 2015, there was some deficiency in the Petitioner's argument. According to the counter-affidavit, the age on the Aadhar card had been corrected. However, in the written submissions, the discrepancy between Rule 272 of the Rules and Section 14 of the Act was raised. The Secretary had also filed an extensive counter-affidavit dated December 6, 2022, highlighting this subject once more.
Contentions Made:
Petitioner: Despite numerous attempts, reminders, and representations, the Board did not process his application. Moreover, as per Rule 266(2) of the Rules, the age affidavit is the only prescribed proof of age.
Respondent: To be eligible for pension, a building and construction worker needed to be the Board's member for at least three years immediately before retirement.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench noted that in the overall facts of this case, the Petitioner's date of birth was appropriately reported in the registration card with the Board and in the Aadhar card. As a result, there was no conflict or discrepancy between the two documents in question. The only concern presented was an issue of law involving a contradiction between Rule 272 of the Rules and Section 14 of the Act.
This Court had already made a judgment on this subject in Dulari Devi v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Board & Anr. wherein it was It was clarified that Section 14 of the Act did not dictate the eligibility for a worker to be entitled to a pension, but rather provided for criteria when a beneficiary no longer qualified. Thus, Section 14 of the Act governed the termination of beneficiary status, while Rule 272 of the Rules governed pension eligibility. So, there was no conflict between these two provisions as was being sought to be made out. As per Rule 272 of the Rules, any worker who has worked for not less than one year after the commencement of the Rules i.e., 2022 shall become eligible for pension on completion of 60 years. Thus, all he would have to show is that he was a beneficiary under the Rules for at least one year on completion of 60 years.
According to the Builders Association of India and Ors v. Union of India (UOI) & Ors., the Act is a beneficial legislation that contemplates benefits for construction workers, including pension. So, the right to pension of construction workers cannot be deprived simply because of a difference in the date of birth as long as the worker's identity can be established, and the claim is not a fake claim or a ghost claim.
Judgment:
The Bench held that there was no rationale for not processing the Petitioner's pension application. The Petitioner had met the requirements set out in the Act and the Rules for the release of his pension and other benefits. As a result, the applications for the release of workers' pensions were granted and disposed of in the above terms. According to the Rules, the pension and appropriate interest were to be released within 8 weeks, subject to the necessary verification of credentials and documentation. Costs of Rs. 25000/- were awarded to the Petitioner because he had been wrongly denied his lawful pension for a long time. The Board was directed to pay the Petitioner within eight weeks.
Case: Raghunath vs Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board & Anr.
Citation: W.P.(C) 13050/2021, on 13th April 2023
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Chirayu Jain.
Advocates for Respondents: Mr. Abhay Dixit, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Mohd. Shahid Khan and Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, Advocate for R2.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
